Compiler or interpreter: benefits, drawbacks and choosing

• The program runs faster, because translation has already happened; no interpretation at run time.
• The executable can be distributed without the source code, protecting the developer's work.
• Errors are found before release, since the whole program is checked.
• No translator is needed on the user's machine, so it uses less memory while running.

• Easier to debug: the interpreter stops at the faulty statement, so the error is found where it happens.
• No compile step, so testing a small change is instant — good for learning and prototyping.
• Portable: the same source runs on any machine with an interpreter, so nothing needs rebuilding for a different processor.
• Statements are executed as they are read, which suits interactive programs where the next line depends on input.

Exam questions usually say "justify", which means name the choice and connect it to the situation.

• A commercial game sold to thousands of users → compiler: fast execution and source code can be kept private.
• A student learning to program, testing small changes → interpreter: immediate feedback and errors located precisely.
• A script that must run on Windows, macOS and Linux unchanged → interpreter (or a language that compiles to a portable intermediate form).
• A program with a tight time limit, such as a simulation run millions of times → compiler: the speed of machine code matters.