Return to Answer

It means that shell scripts aren't compiled, they're interpreted: the shell interprets scripts one command at a time, and figures out every time how to execute each command. That makes sense for shell scripts since they spend most of their time running other programs anyway.

C programs on the other hand are usually compiled: before they can be run, a compiler converts them to machine code in their entirety, once and for all. There have been C interpreters in the past (such as HiSoft's C interpreter on the Atari ST) but they were very unusual. Nowadays C compilers are very fast; TCC is so fast you can use it to create "C scripts", with a #!/usr/bin/tcc -run shebang, so you can create C programs which run in the same way as shell scripts (from the users' perspective).

Some languages commonly have both an interpreter and a compiler: BASIC is one example that springs to mind.

You can also find so-called shell script compilers but the ones I've seen are just obfuscating wrappers: they still use a shell to actually interpret the script. As mtraceur points out though a proper shell script compiler would certainly be possible, just not very interesting.

Another way of thinking about this is to consider that a shell's script interpreting capability is an extension of its command-line handling capability, which naturally leads to an interpreted approach. C on the other hand was designed to produce stand-alone binaries; this leads to a compiled approach. Languages which are usually compiled do tend to sprout interpreters too, or at least command-line-parsers (known as REPLs, read-eval-print loops; a shell is itself a REPL).

It means that shell scripts aren't compiled, they're interpreted: the shell interprets scripts one command at a time, and figures out every time how to execute each command. That makes sense for shell scripts since they spend most of their time running other programs anyway.

C programs on the other hand are usually compiled: before they can be run, a compiler converts them to machine code in their entirety, once and for all. There have been C interpreters in the past (such as HiSoft's C interpreter on the Atari ST) but they were very unusual. Nowadays C compilers are very fast; TCC is so fast you can use it to create "C scripts", with a #!/usr/bin/tcc -run shebang, so you can create C programs which run in the same way as shell scripts (from the users' perspective).

Some languages commonly have both an interpreter and a compiler: BASIC is one example that springs to mind.

You can also find so-called shell script compilers but the ones I've seen are just obfuscating wrappers: they still use a shell to actually interpret the script. As mtraceur points out though a proper shell script compiler would certainly be possible, just not very interesting.

Another way of thinking about this is to consider that a shell's script interpreting capability is an extension of its command-line handling capability, which naturally leads to an interpreted approach. C on the other hand was designed to produce stand-alone binaries; this leads to a compiled approach. Languages which are usually compiled do tend to sprout interpreters too, or at least command-line-parsers (known as REPLs, read-eval-print loops; a shell is itself a REPL).

It means that shell scripts aren't compiled, they're interpreted: the shell interprets scripts one command at a time, and figures out every time how to execute each command. That makes sense for shell scripts since they spend most of their time running other programs anyway.

C programs on the other hand are usually compiled: before they can be run, a compiler converts them to machine code in their entirety, once and for all. There have been C interpreters in the past (such as HiSoft's C interpreter on the Atari ST) but they were very unusual.

Some languages commonly have both an interpreter and a compiler: BASIC is one example that springs to mind.

You can also find so-called shell script compilers but the ones I've seen are just obfuscating wrappers: they still use a shell to actually interpret the script. As mtraceur points out though a proper shell script compiler would certainly be possible, just not very interesting.

Another way of thinking about this is to consider that a shell's script interpreting capability is an extension of its command-line handling capability, which naturally leads to an interpreted approach. C on the other hand was designed to produce stand-alone binaries; this leads to a compiled approach. Languages which are usually compiled do tend to sprout interpreters too, or at least command-line-parsers (known as REPLs, read-eval-print loops; a shell is itself a REPL).

It means that shell scripts aren't compiled, they're interpreted: the shell interprets scripts one command at a time, and figures out every time how to execute each command. That makes sense for shell scripts since they spend most of their time running other programs anyway.

C programs on the other hand are usually compiled: before they can be run, a compiler converts them to machine code in their entirety, once and for all. There have been C interpreters in the past (such as HiSoft's C interpreter on the Atari ST) but they were very unusual. Nowadays C compilers are very fast; TCC is so fast you can use it to create "C scripts", with a #!/usr/bin/tcc -run shebang, so you can create C programs which run in the same way as shell scripts (from the users' perspective).

Some languages commonly have both an interpreter and a compiler: BASIC is one example that springs to mind.

You can also find so-called shell script compilers but the ones I've seen are just obfuscating wrappers: they still use a shell to actually interpret the script. As mtraceur points out though a proper shell script compiler would certainly be possible, just not very interesting.

Another way of thinking about this is to consider that a shell's script interpreting capability is an extension of its command-line handling capability, which naturally leads to an interpreted approach. C on the other hand was designed to produce stand-alone binaries; this leads to a compiled approach. Languages which are usually compiled do tend to sprout interpreters too, or at least command-line-parsers (known as REPLs, read-eval-print loops; a shell is itself a REPL).

It means that shell scripts aren't compiled, they're interpreted: the shell interprets scripts one command at a time, and figures out every time how to execute each command. That makes sense for shell scripts since they spend most of their time running other programs anyway.

C programs on the other hand are usually compiled: before they can be run, a compiler converts them to machine code in their entirety, once and for all. There have been C interpreters in the past (such as HiSoft's C interpreter on the Atari ST) but they were very unusual.

Some languages commonly have both an interpreter and a compiler: BASIC is one example that springs to mind.

You can also find so-called shell script compilers but the ones I've seen are just obfuscating wrappers: they still use a shell to actually interpret the script.

It means that shell scripts aren't compiled, they're interpreted: the shell interprets scripts one command at a time, and figures out every time how to execute each command. That makes sense for shell scripts since they spend most of their time running other programs anyway.

C programs on the other hand are usually compiled: before they can be run, a compiler converts them to machine code in their entirety, once and for all. There have been C interpreters in the past (such as HiSoft's C interpreter on the Atari ST) but they were very unusual.

Some languages commonly have both an interpreter and a compiler: BASIC is one example that springs to mind.

You can also find so-called shell script compilers but the ones I've seen are just obfuscating wrappers: they still use a shell to actually interpret the script. As mtraceur points out though a proper shell script compiler would certainly be possible, just not very interesting.

Another way of thinking about this is to consider that a shell's script interpreting capability is an extension of its command-line handling capability, which naturally leads to an interpreted approach. C on the other hand was designed to produce stand-alone binaries; this leads to a compiled approach. Languages which are usually compiled do tend to sprout interpreters too, or at least command-line-parsers (known as REPLs, read-eval-print loops; a shell is itself a REPL).