Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Josef_M=C3=B6llers?= <josef@invalid.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2024 12:10:20 +0100
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <l6nlssF3jbqU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <uu636l$7haj$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net NEv/LbR9SzYEKKKmD7ObbAO4lwHu5D+DyiOYZPWFvqmtlKoT2n
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bjYwTSUIUr/8CdnX9BBHscpI89s= sha256:q+SrjdT55L4eQZpsvKIWlbbwAihD09dBFKz6JsicXSY=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <uu636l$7haj$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2035

On 29.03.24 10:55, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 01:14:18 -0000 (UTC)
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> At one time, we distinguished between “scripting” languages and
>> “programming” languages. To begin with, the “scripting” languages were
>> somehow more limited in functionality than full-fledged “programming”
>> languages. Or they were slower, because they were interpreted.
>>
>> Then languages like Perl and Java came along: both were compiled to a
>> bytecode, a sort of pseudo-machine-language, which was interpreted by
>> software, not CPU hardware. Were they “scripting” or “programming”
>> languages? Some might have classed Perl as a “scripting” language to
> 
> My rule of thimb is that a scripting language is one whereby the source code
> can be run immediately by the interpreter, eg perl, python, regardless of
> what happens internally. A full fledged programming language is one that
> requires a compile/debug/link step first with the compiler and runtime (if
> required) being seperate. eg Java, C

I second that.

My 2€cts,
Josef