http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=123862


in reply to When is a script an application

One definition that I've often heard is that scripts are interpreted and applications are compiled. Of course this works in Perl's favour as Perl programs are compiled, even if it looks like they're interpreted.

Update: Should probably make it clear that this isn't a categorisation that I agree with (for many reasons including the ones mentioned by mikeB below. I jsut mention it as the most common explaination that I've heard.

--
<http://www.dave.org.uk>

"The first rule of Perl club is you don't talk about Perl club."

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: When is a script an application
by mikeB (Friar) on Nov 07, 2001 at 21:54 UTC
    Where do you draw the line between "compiled" and "interpreted"? Perl, Java, and older VB among others are compiled to an intermediate code which is then executed by an interpreter.

    By the compiled/interpreted definition, VB programmers 5 years ago were writing "scripts" which, when compiled in a recent version, are now "programs".

    Come to think of it, some mainframes use microcode to execute machine instructions. The microcode is an "interpreter" for the machine's assembly language. Guess that makes all those big COBOL programs scripts, not applications :)

[reply]
      x86 asembly is compiled into macrocode. Each instruction is then translated by the CPU to a number of microcode instructions that are then run by the functional units. Is a hardware interpreter still an interpreter?
[reply]

In Section Meditations