Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Post History
Interpreters are easier to write than compilers. For this reason esoteric and toy languages are often implemented by interpretation. But the dichotomy between interpreted and compiled languages is...
Answer
#1: Initial revision
by
Peter Taylor
·
2021-02-03T12:46:21Z (about 3 years ago)
Interpreters are easier to write than compilers. For this reason esoteric and toy languages are often implemented by interpretation. But the dichotomy between interpreted and compiled *languages* is a false one: * a sufficiently popular language which initially has only an interpreter may well later gain a compiler for performance reasons (see: Python vs Cython, pypy, etc; PHP vs HHVM). * other popular platforms use hybrid approaches whereby source code is compiled to a bytecode for a virtual machine, and then the bytecode is interpreted or part interpreted and part JIT-compiled (see: Java, .Net).