What is the difference between a compiler and an interpreter.explain with examples?

Answer 1

The primary difference between them goes like this:

• A compiler takes the program code you've written and processes it into native machine code. Once this process is completed, you end up with a compiled object that can be further processed into a complete executable program. This compiled program is separate from the source code you still possess: completely in machine-native code. Since it's been hard-set with the instructions it has to do, compiled programs are fast, but they can't be changed without recompiling them.
• An interpreter takes the program code you've written and walks through it, step by step, handling each instruction on the fly: as it goes. The interpreter does all the machine-related stuff. It must keep reading the source code throughout the procedure since it does not produce a machine-native program from the source. Interpreted programs are easy to edit and adjust since there are no intervening steps between code writing and execution, but the very nature of instruction interpretation and having to deal with syntactical nuances every time the program is run tends to slow down the execution.

Perhaps the best real-world way to relate the difference is to picture yourself holding two different sets of instructions. One set is instructions on how to do a task. In this case, you're interpreting the instructions and doing the job yourself. The other set is instructions on how to build (compile) a machine to do the same task. Now you're compiling the instructions into a separate final object (the machine) that can now do the same job on its own. The pros and cons are evident here as well. As an interpreter, it's easy enough for you to alter the instructions so as to do something else. But once the machine is compiled, its function can't be changed. You'll need to alter the instructions and build a new machine.