A lot of questions get asked here about interpreted vs compiled language implements. I'm wondering whether the distinction actually makes any sense. (Actually the questions are usually about languages, but they are really thinking about the most popular implementations of those languages).
Today almost no implementation is strictly interpreted. i.e. pretty much nobody parses and runs the code one line at a time. Additionally, implementation which compile to machine code are also becoming less common. Increasingly, compilers target some sort of virtual machine.
In fact, most implementation are converging on the same basic strategy. The compiler produces bytecode which is interpreted or compiled to native code via a JIT. It is really a mix of the traditional ideas of compilation and interpretation.
Thus I ask: Is there a useful distinction between interpreted implementations and compiled implementation these days?
Best Answer
It's important to remember that interpreting and compiling are not just alternatives to each other. In the end, any program that you write (including one compiled to machine code) gets interpreted. Interpreting code simply means taking a set of instructions and returning an answer.
Compiling, on the other hand, means converting a program in one language to another language. Usually it is assumed that when compilation takes place, the code is compiled to a "lower-level" language (eg. machine code, some kind of VM bytecode, etc.). This compiled code is still interpreted later on.
With regards to your question of whether there is a useful distinction between interpreted and compiled languages, my personal opinion is that everyone should have a basic understanding of what is happening to the code they write during interpretation. So, if their code is being JIT compiled, or bytecode-cached, etc., the programmer should at least have a basic understanding of what that means.