Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:28:34 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <uu8pgj$ui8u$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <87edbtz43p.fsf@tudado.org>
 <programming-20240329210532@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
 <877chkindf.fsf@tudado.org>
 <scripting-20240330084331@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 10:28:35 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9f251e9298e3611245e862f5e59fa23a";
	logging-data="1001758"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/tICwAiNlIZTMtCHzTOJN/"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IJ1vlYnuqaQ3jQ3rbqDpJXd5ceo=
In-Reply-To: <scripting-20240330084331@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Bytes: 2843

On 30.03.2024 08:47, Stefan Ram wrote:
> 
>   But look at Pascal, Java, or Python. They are usually compiled
>   into an intermediate code (called "p-code" in the case of
>   Pascal) which is then interpreted (the interpreter is called
>   "JVM" in the case of Java). Yet, we think of Pascal and Java
>   as programming languages and of Python as a scripting language.

I never used an interpreted Pascal, nor one that produced p-code.
(As far as memory serves it was the UCSD Pascal dialect that
decided to use intermediate code to be interpreted.) My Pascal
programs have always been compiled.

And there were BASIC compilers on mainframes before the BASIC
interpreters on PCs became popular and widespread.

It's _the same_ language (modulo dialects), and languages are
usually defined by their grammar and semantics and not whether
it is interpreted/compiled or how it is run (VM or else).

I think it's obvious that interpretation vs. compilation or any
intermediate interpreted p-code is not an appropriate criterion
to declare something as a "scripting" language. You can't tell
whether a language, Pascal, BASIC, or any other language, is a
"scripting" language by that criterion. It's also generally a
fuzzy term; literature speaks vaguely about "typical" criteria
but cannot pin them down. - And that term isn't even helpful in
any way! - So why use it at all or religiously dispute about it.

Janis

> 
>   But this is actually an implementation detail: Java also can
>   be compiled into machine code.
> 
>   [...]