Put simply, do you ship machine code?
Yes: it's compiled
No: it's interpreted
I'd say, Yes: it's assembled.
Yes: it's assembled
Compiled is really, really confusing, because of the varying usage. As I said, you can compile to another language, to bytecode, to object code, to machine code...but you can only assemble to machine code.
I'm getting this distinction from the conventional compilation toolchain, btw. We compile first to some form of intermediary code, and then we assemble to the machine code.
Just bear in mind the most in academia use the term Compiled, as the term assembled, means to assemble assembly to machine code.
Oh, I'm well aware. I've historically used it the same...in fact, I'd prefer if that's all it meant.
Unfortunately, that distinction is lost on most...and sadly, part of that is from communities surrounding some interpreted languages misusing the term "compiled" for so long to dodge the fact their language is interpreted.
That, in turn, is because "interpreted" has been used in an almost derogatory manner for so long.
Language evolves, and not always for the better. Trying to cram the linguistic refrigerator biscuit dough back in the tube is a losing fight.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.