title: Is Ruby really an interpreted language if all of its implementations are compiled into bytecode?
body: <p>In the chosen answer for <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/716543/what-is-the-significance-for-ruby-programmers-of-saps-new-implementation-of-ruby">this question about Blue Ruby</a>, Chuck says:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>All of the current Ruby
    implementations are compiled to
    bytecode. Contrary to SAP's claims, as
    of Ruby 1.9, MRI itself includes a
    bytecode compiler, though the ability
    to save the compiled bytecode to disk
    disappeared somewhere in the process
    of merging the YARV virtual machine.
    JRuby is compiled into Java .class
    files. I don't have a lot of details
    on MagLev, but it seems safe to say it
    will take that road as well.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I'm confused about this compilation/interpretation issue with respect to Ruby.</p>
  
  <p>I learned that Ruby is an interpreted language and that's why when I save changes to my Ruby files I don't need to re-build the project.</p>
  
  <p>But if all of the Ruby implementations now are compiled, is it still fair to say that Ruby is an interpreted language? Or am I misunderstanding something?</p>