tags:

views:

847

answers:

7

I know next to nothing about Python but have decided to jump in. I'm curious though, is Python strictly interpreted at run time, or can it be used to develop programs that run as background applications (like a Java app or C program)?

+2  A: 

Yes, Python is interpreted, but you can also run them as long-running applications.

+21  A: 

There's multiple questions here:

  1. No, Python is not interpreted. The standard implementation compiles to bytecode, and then executes in a virtual machine. Many modern JavaScript engines also do this.
  2. Regardless of implementation (interpreter, VM, machine code), anything you want can run in the background. You can run shell scripts in the background, if you want.
John Millikin
+1 beat me to it :-)
Jarret Hardie
Many thanks for such a quick answer. That also puts a lot of other things into context I've been reading about Python.
Geuis
The "not interpreted" is an overstatement. It's not interpreted as source. The Python VM clearly interprets the bytecode. It is not compiled into machine-specific binaries, so it's interpreted at some level.
S.Lott
Lott: by that measure, almost every modern language is interpreted, and the word ceases to have a useful meaning.
John Millikin
I think the difference lies in whether the interpretation is done by hardware (the CPU) or software (the Python VM). I consider Python to be interpreted.
kigurai
kigurai: Then how do you differentiate between an implementation that uses a VM, and one that uses an interpreter? There's already a perfectly good and accurate word for both ("byte-compiled", "interpreted") -- lets use them, instead of adding new meanings.
John Millikin
If Python is interpreted then Java is interpreted too.
Oli
If Python /java is not interpreted, would you it's compiled ? Not sure it makes sense. It's closer to interpreted language than to compiled one, I think.
e-satis
+2  A: 

Python is an interpreted language but it is the bytecode which is interpreted at run time. There are also many tools out there that can assist you in making your programs run as a windows service / UNIX daemon.

John T
someones feeling grumpy today
John T
+1 to even out as this is a good answer. You're not wrong: there's a difference between a purely compiled language and python's byte-compilation as python's pyc are generated, interpretedly, when the .py is accessed by the runtime. That's not interpreted like PHP, but it's also not compiled like
Jarret Hardie
sigh... char limits :-) .... not compiled like C, or even java/C#
Jarret Hardie
If Python is interpreted, then so are Java and C#. Just because the compiler will be invoked automatically doesn't mean it's not compiled.I'm also mystified about what "purely compiled" means.
John Millikin
I mean there's no linker. In that sense (see Joel On Software http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/PleaseLinker.html), you're right... python shares much with java and C#. Still, there's no explicit "pythoncc" step, which makes the semantics of compile/interpret non-straightforward, IMO.
Jarret Hardie
The difference between compilation and interpretation is still straightforward. An interpreter traverses the parsed representation at runtime and evaluates nodes. A compiler converts the representation into a separate format, which is evaluated (either by hardware or a virtual machine).
John Millikin
Well, somebody had better tell Guido, because his resume (http://www.python.org/~guido/Resume.html) explicitly calls Python interpreted. I feel Python is compiled. Still, many will say that ANY VM-based runtime is interpreted, and as a translation between VM-code and the OS/hardware, it is.
Jarret Hardie
It's possible that, at the time, Python *was* interpreted. Interpreters are easier to write than compilers -- for example, until recently, Ruby was interpreted.
John Millikin
No disagreement from me there.
Jarret Hardie
@Jarret--what's this strange distinction you make between "VM" and "hardware". The VM *is* the hardware, isn't it???? :-)
James Schek
@James: snort snort snort... no fair... you made me squirt my programmer beer through my nose! :-)
Jarret Hardie
+2  A: 

Yes, it's interpreted, its main implementation compiles bytecode first and then runs it though (kind of if you took a java source and the JVM compiled it before running it). Still, you can run your application in background. Actually, you can run pretty much anything in background.

Phrodo_00
+7  A: 

Technically Python is compiled to bytecode and then interpreted in a VM, as John Millikin said. If the Python compiler is able to write out the bytecode into a .pyc file, it will (usually) do so.

On the other hand, there's no explicit compilation step in Python as there is with Java or C. From the point of view of the developer, it looks like Python is just interpreting the .py file directly. Plus, Python offers an interactive prompt where you can type Python statements and have them executed immediately. So the workflow in Python is much more similar to that of an interpreted language than that of a compiled language. To me (and a lot of other developers, I suppose), that distinction of workflow is more important than whether there's an intermediate bytecode step or not.

David Zaslavsky
For a language to be "interpreted" implies the use of an interpreter in its implementation. It's a purely performance-related issue. Whether or not the language can be used in an interactive prompt is irrelevant: Haskell and C# can both be used in an REPL, and are undeniably not interpreted.
John Millikin
A: 

There is something that's close to it called Psyco. I never worked with this Python compiler, and I suggest you peruse the Python mailing list and the web for possible pitfalls if you are using it on a mission-critical app in production.

Andrei Taranchenko
+1  A: 

As the varied responses will tell you, the line between interpreted and compiled is no longer as clear as it was when such terms were coined. In fact, it's also something of a mistake to consider langauges as being either interpreted or compiled, as different implementations of languages may do different things. These days you can find both C interpreters and Javascript compilers.

Even when looking at an implementation, things still aren't clear-cut. There are layers of interpretation. Here are a few of the gradations between interpreted and compiled:

  1. Pure interpretation. Pretty much what it says on the tin. Read a line of source and immediately do what it says. This isn't actually done by many production languages - pretty much just things like shell scripts.

  2. Tokenisation + interpretation. A trivial optimisation on the above. Rather than interpret each line from scratch, it's first tokenised (that is, rather than seeing a string like "print 52 + x", it's translated into a stream of tokens (eg. [PRINT_STATEMENT, INTEGER(52), PLUS_SIGN, IDENTIFIER('x')] ) to avoid repeatedly performing that state of interpretation. Many versions of basic worked this way.

  3. Bytecode compilation. This is the approach taken by languages like Java and C# (though see below). The code is transformed into instructions for a "virtual machine". These instructions are then interpreted. This is also the approach taken by python (or at least cpython, the most common implementation.) The Jython and Ironpython implementations also take this approach, but compile to the bytecode for the Java and C# virtual machines resepectively.

  4. Bytecode + Just in Time compilation. As above, but rather than interpreting the bytecodes, the code that would be performed is compiled from the bytecode at the point of execution, and then run. In some cases, this can actually outperform native compilation, as it is free to perform runtime analysis on the code, and can use specific features of the current processor (while static compilation may need to compile for a lowest common denominator CPU). Later versions of Java, and C# use this approach. Psyco performs this for python.

  5. Native machine-code compilation. The code is compiled to the machine code of the target system. You may think we've now completely eliminated interpretation, but even here there are subtleties. Some machine code instructions are not actually directly implemented in hardware, but are in fact implemented via microcode - even machine code is sometimes interpreted!

Brian