>No, .NET framework is not interpreted, and it is not machine code either. .NET languages compile down to IL (independent language), which is a common low level language used to run on the .NET CLR (common language runtime), more compariable to the Java Runtime engine (a layer between machine code and compiled code).

bytecode

"Machine-independent code generated by the Java compiler and executed by the Java interpreter or compiled at the last minute by a JIT compiler."

MS VC++ Glossary.


"Layer", "Runtime", Virtual Machine, CLR, interpreter ...

Unless MS has come up with a completely new branch of Computer Science, we're still faced with the fact that if it's not a (machine-code) compiler, then it's an interpreter.

Or, put another way, if Java, CLR/NET, VFP, VdB, etc. are no longer "interpreters", then what is ?

VB "used" to be an interpreter ... even MS admitted that, particularly when they came out with the "native compiler" in 5.0.

In fact, VB is still an "interpreter"; the difference is, you now have the "option" to compile to machine code (since the native VB compiler is in fact the same as the VC compiler).

I should think we're passed the days of GWBasic and any stigma associated with "interpreters" (or maybe not).

A rose is a rose ... A spade is a spade ... an interpreter is ... NOT ?