This is opposed to the black-box view of gcc, which solely compiles C into the opcodes (or ASM) for the OS it's targeted to compile to.

From a black-box view, it's interpreting Perl, regardless of how many internal steps it takes to get there.

That's silly. That would mean that

    #!/bin/bash
    gcc -o blabla program.c
    ./blabla
    rm blabla
[download]

is a C interpreter.

I've never heard of a definition of an interpreter as "a compiler that directly executes the code it generates".

Abigail

Definition of interpreter: "An interpreter translates high-level instructions into an intermediate form, which it then executes. ..."

By that definition, your bash script most definitly is an interpreter. And, so is Perl.

Another definition I saw "a program that translates and executes source language statements one line at a time". By that definition, neither your script nor Perl is an interpreter. (That definition was also found here and here.)

*shrugs* The devil's in the details, I guess. I take a black-box approach, which is supported by webopedia. You are taking a white-box approach, supported by hyperdictionary, computerdictionary, and thefreedictionary. If we were to vote on it, you'd Kerry my Edwards, I guess. *grins*

------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.

Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.