Comparison between interpreted and compiled languages:
| Feature | Interpreted Language | Compiled Language |
|---|---|---|
| Execution | Executes line by line via an interpreter | Translates whole code into machine code before execution using a compiler |
| Speed | Slower (interpreted during runtime) | Faster (pre-compiled into binary) |
| Error Detection | Stops at first error during execution | Detects all syntax errors before execution |
| Portability | Highly portable (requires interpreter on target machine) | Platform-specific binaries unless recompiled |
| Development Speed | Faster for testing and debugging | Slower due to compile-wait-test cycle |
| Examples | Python, JavaScript, PHP, Ruby | C, C++, Go, Rust |
| Output | No separate executable; runs via interpreter | Creates a standalone executable (.exe, .out) |
| Usage | Scripting, automation, data science, web dev | System programming, high-performance applications |
Summary:
- Interpreted languages are great for quick development, testing, and scripting tasks.
- Compiled languages are better suited for applications where performance and efficiency are critical.
🔁 Some languages like Java use both – the code is compiled to bytecode and then interpreted by the JVM (Java Virtual Machine).