> There are various characteristics of programming languages that can make it much easier to implement them as interpreted languages rather than compiled languages, and vice versa.
It is all about convenience and effort one is willing to invest versus return on investment. As any good CS compiler design course will show to their students.
Back in the 70-80's most languages had multiple implementations offering both compilers and interpreters as part of their toolchains.
Only on the early 2000's I started to see this phenomenon of mixing languages with their canonical implementation.
It is all about convenience and effort one is willing to invest versus return on investment. As any good CS compiler design course will show to their students.
Back in the 70-80's most languages had multiple implementations offering both compilers and interpreters as part of their toolchains.
Only on the early 2000's I started to see this phenomenon of mixing languages with their canonical implementation.