A lot of questions get asked here about interpreted vs compiled language implements. I'm wondering whether the distinction actually makes any sense. (Actually the questions are usually about languages, but they are really thinking about the most popular implementations of those languages).Today almost no implementation is strictly interpreted. i.e. pretty much nobody parses and runs the code one line at a time. Additionally, implementation which compile to machine code are also becoming less common. Increasingly, compilers target some sort of virtual machine.In fact, most implementation are converging on the same basic strategy. The compiler produces bytecode which is interpreted or compiled to native code via a JIT. It is really a mix of the traditional ideas of compilation and interpretation. Thus I ask: Is there a useful distinction between interpreted implementations and compiled implementation these days?  
Interpreted vs Compiled: A useful distinction?
programming languages;compiler;interpreters