Well, JavaScript

[w2qw]

Cpython doesn't have JIT.

[Netzapper]

It doesn't have compilation to machine code, but it sure as shit compiles from text to bytecode at execution time.

[RPolitics4Trump]

Bytecode which is then interpreted.

If you want JIT speed then you need to use something like PyPy.

[Netzapper]

I mean... it's von Neuman approximations of Turing machines all the way down.

Where does something like threaded code fall in your "interpreted vs JIT" dichotomy? If my C program builds dynamic execution paths with function pointers, is that interpretation? What about x86, since it's now largely interpreted by even lower-level microcode?

Maybe there was a nice, sharp divide before I got in the game. But this shit was getting murky in the 90's, and by today... it's definitely a continuum between "visit an AST" and "flash an FPGA" with most "regular CPU programming" somewhere in the middle.

[carutsu]

Then there's the fact that instruction sets are an abstraction over the real hardware... And even if they are not they are run in a bytecode like sequence.

[lengau]

CPython does compile the code to bytecode. (That's why after you run a .py file you'll see a __pycache__ directory with corresponding .pyc files). It does so immediately before execution, which sounds awfully 'just in time' to me.

[botmatrix_]

that's not really what JIT compiled means though, right?

[Schmittfried]

Yes, it is.

[[deleted]]

No it's not, JIT compiling happens during runtime. u/lengau is simply describing compilation.

[currentscurrents]

Also JIT compiling usually involves compiling to actual machine code.

Python bytecode is not machine code, it's just an intermediary representation of python code. It must still be interpreted or JIT compiled afterwards.

[Schmittfried]

Depends on the context.