patternMinor
Interpretation in scripting languages
Viewed 0 times
languagesinterpretationscripting
Problem
Why is pure interpretation more common for scripting languages compared to programming languages?
I mean, why are programs written in a scripting language not converted to machine language and then executed? From what I have read, one of the reasons is speed; for scripting purposes speed is not so important and since interpretation is slower it doesn't matter for scripting languages.
Are there more reasons for using interpretation in scripting?
I mean, why are programs written in a scripting language not converted to machine language and then executed? From what I have read, one of the reasons is speed; for scripting purposes speed is not so important and since interpretation is slower it doesn't matter for scripting languages.
Are there more reasons for using interpretation in scripting?
Solution
Scripting languages are a class of programming languages. This class is rather fuzzily defined.
One possible definition is that they're languages that are designed to automate small tasks, rather than to write large, complex programs. Because they are small tasks, the author tends to spend some time tweaking them, so it makes sense to make the path from source code to executable as simple as possible, and it doesn't get simpler than making the source code itself executable. Because they are simple tasks, the end-user might want to tweak them, too, so it makes sense to distribute them as source code. Because the tasks are relatively small and simple, there's little to be gained by static checking and optimization, so there's little value in using a compiler.
Another possible definition is that a scripting language is one in which the source code is executable. In other words, a scripting language is pretty much defined as one that's intended to be interpreted.
Few scripting languages are purely interpreted though. Most at least parse the whole file before starting execution. Many even compile to some form of bytecode that can be saved to disk.
One possible definition is that they're languages that are designed to automate small tasks, rather than to write large, complex programs. Because they are small tasks, the author tends to spend some time tweaking them, so it makes sense to make the path from source code to executable as simple as possible, and it doesn't get simpler than making the source code itself executable. Because they are simple tasks, the end-user might want to tweak them, too, so it makes sense to distribute them as source code. Because the tasks are relatively small and simple, there's little to be gained by static checking and optimization, so there's little value in using a compiler.
Another possible definition is that a scripting language is one in which the source code is executable. In other words, a scripting language is pretty much defined as one that's intended to be interpreted.
Few scripting languages are purely interpreted though. Most at least parse the whole file before starting execution. Many even compile to some form of bytecode that can be saved to disk.
Context
StackExchange Computer Science Q#49676, answer score: 7
Revisions (0)
No revisions yet.