I personally draw a distinction between "real" programming languages and scripting languages. Scripting languages being languages that are traditionally source distributed. They tend to be much easier to write, run slower, often but not always dynamically typed, and operate at a higher level than "real" programming languages. That's not to say they aren't actually useful or difficult to learn etc. It's not a demeaning separation, just a useful categorization IMO. Not to say the categorization always holds water in all those attributes, luajit is way faster than Java but it does follow the other bits. As someone who loves C there are lots of languages that seem too limiting and high level, doesn't mean they aren't useful tho.

[–] firelizzard 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

That line is blurring to the point where it barely exists any more. Compiled languages are becoming increasingly dynamic (e.g. JIT compilation, code generation at runtime) and interpreted languages are getting compiled. JavaScript is a great example: V8 uses LLVM (a traditional compiler) to optimize and compile hot functions into machine code.

IMO the only definition of “real” programming language that makes any sense is a (Turing complete) language you can realistically build production systems with. Anything else is pointlessly pedantic or gatekeeping.

[–] Scoopta 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm aware of the increasing prevalence of JIT, that doesn't change the other markers I listed. Ironically though the language the post is about, CPython still lacks JIT. Also I disagree in general, there are things scripting languages can't do and will never be practical for. It's not that they aren't useful programming languages, that's not what I'm saying but I think having a separate category for them is useful.

[–] firelizzard 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Scripting languages being languages that are traditionally source distributed.

Source distributed means you can read the source if it hasn't been obfuscated. OTOH, it is trivial to decompile Java and C# so this isn't a real difference for those languages (which happen to be compiled languages). So it's only relevant for languages specifically compiled to machine code.
Source distributed means the recipient needs to install something. OTOH, Java and C#, again.

So the only ways that the distribution mechanism matter are really a difference between How does the distribution mechanism matter beyond that? And even those points are

They tend to be much easier to write

I'm assuming you are not saying "real" languages should be hard to write...

run slower

Objective-C and Go run slower than C and they're all compiled languages. Sure, an interpreter will be slower than a compiled language but modern languages aren't simply interpreted (i.e. JIT, etc).

often but not always dynamically typed, and operate at a higher level

There are dynamically typed compiled languages, and high level compiled languages.

It’s not a demeaning separation, just a useful categorization IMO.

Calling one class of languages "real" and another class something else is inherently demeaning. I wouldn't have cared enough to type this if you used "compiled vs scripting" instead of "real vs scripting". Though I disagree with using "scripting" at all to describe a language since that's an assertion of how you use the language, not of the language itself. "Interpreted" on the other hand is a descriptor of the language itself.

As someone who loves C there are lots of languages that seem too limiting and high level, doesn’t mean they aren’t useful tho.

I personally can't stand Java because the language designers decided to remove 'dangerous' features like pointers and unsigned integers because apparently programmers are children who are incapable of handling the risk. On the other hand I love Go. It's high level enough to be enjoyable and easy to write, but if you want to get into the weeds you can.

[–] Scoopta 1 points 2 weeks ago

Source distributed means the recipient needs to install something. OTOH, Java and C#, again.

Needing something installed is vague at best. If I ship python or Java with my program the user doesn't need it installed, if you compile a go or rust program the runtime is statically linked into the program, but it's still there. Additionally while decompiling to Java is trivial it doesn't change the fact that A) there is a compiler B) optimization can be done by the compiler C) compilers for other languages unrelated to Java can be built for the platform D) obfuscated bytecode can be structured in ways impossible to describe with Java source code because the JVM supports features the language does not(jumps, return type method overloading, etc)

Basically the JVM is a platform for running code, yes it has one flagship language and yes they influence each other but they're not exactly one in the same. A similar argument can be made for .NET.

I'm assuming you are not saying "real" languages should be hard to write...

I'm saying they're typically more difficult and have more rules, not that they should be "hard" per-say. I know somone who is a pretty capable lua programmer but gets lost in namespaces, classes, etc. Sure you can OOP in lua and Python but you don't strictly speaking have to. The only other language like that which comes to mind is C++ which has its own challenges. Go isn't OOP but go packages and the requirement for having a package is the kind of extra complexity I'm referring to. Scripting languages typically have a lower barrier to entry, that's all I'm saying.

Objective-C and Go run slower than C and they're all compiled languages. Sure, an interpreter will be slower than a compiled language but modern languages aren't simply interpreted (i.e. JIT, etc).

Yes but also popular languages...I.e CPython and lua are still interpreted.

There are dynamically typed compiled languages, and high level compiled languages.

You're finding counter examples to all my points individually, I'm saying scripting languages usually share many of these traits, that's what makes them fundamentally good at scripting. You probably don't want a scripting language with boiler plate, that needs a compiler, that's statically typed etc. My points aren't traits unique to scripting languages, they're traits shared by basically all of them.

Calling one class of languages "real" and another class something else is inherently demeaning. I wouldn't have cared enough to type this if you used "compiled vs scripting" instead of "real vs scripting". Though I disagree with using "scripting" at all to describe a language since that's an assertion of how you use the language, not of the language itself. "Interpreted" on the other hand is a descriptor of the language itself.

I'm using the language of the post, in real life when talking to people I just call them "scripting languages" or "programming languages" respectively and am hardly ever in a situation where further distinction is required. You're right that scripting language doesn't mean anything other than "good for scripting" but that comes with a bag of traits that make it GOOD for scripting. You don't want to script in C, Java, C#, C++, Go, Rust, etc because usually when people are scripting they want to write code fast, with less in their way, without a compiler, etc. Compiled vs interpreted is only one component of that categorization.

I personally can't stand Java because the language designers decided to remove 'dangerous' features like pointers and unsigned integers because apparently programmers are children who are incapable of handling the risk. On the other hand I love Go. It's high level enough to be enjoyable and easy to write, but if you want to get into the weeds you can.

When I want to get something done that needs C I use C, when I want something fast and easy to write I use Java and then JNI with C if that's needed but honestly it better be a tiny amount of C or I'll go write the whole thing in C. And when I want to make a super short script to do things that scripting is good for I'll use bash or if I need something a bit more "real", to use that term again, I'll use lua. All languages have their place, they're just good at different things.

load more comments (4 replies)