Compiled vs. interpreted can be helpful in some contexts, but when applied in a technical sense, it is a false dichotomy.
A compiler (in the broadest sense) is a translator. It translates program A to program B and for future execution it using a machine M.
An interpreter (in the broadest sense) is an executor. It is a machine M that executes program A. Though we typically exclude from this definitions physical machines (or non-physical machines that act just like physical ones). But from theoretic perspective, that distinction is somewhat arbitrary.
For example, take re.compile. It "compiles" a regex to an intermediate form, and that intermediate form is interpreted/evaluated/executed.
In the end, it depends on what level abstraction you are talking about, and what you care about. People say "compiled" or "interpreted" as broad descriptions of the most interesting parts of the process, but really most every program is compiled (translated) and interpreted (executed) in one way or another.
CPython (the most popular implementation of the Python language) is mostly interesting for executing code. So CPython would typically be described as interpreted. Though this is a loose label.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4