657
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago

Needless to say, they're wrong.

Not least because there's no such thing as a "compiled" or "interpreted" language.

Which is to say that it's a property of the tooling rather than the language itself. There's nothing stopping anyone from writing a C interpreter or a Python compiler.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Not least because there’s no such thing as a “compiled” or “interpreted” language.

I'd say there is (but the line is a bit blurry). IMHO the main distinction is the presence (and prevalence) of eval semantics in the language; if it is present, then any "compiler" would have to embed itself into the generated code, thus de-facto turning it into a bundled interpreter.

That said, the argument that interpreted languages are somehow not programming languages is stupid.

[-] [email protected] 16 points 1 week ago

There's nothing stopping anyone from writing a C interpreter

Except god, hopefully

this post was submitted on 29 May 2025
657 points (95.2% liked)

Programmer Humor

23784 readers
2451 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS