1972 Unix V2 "Beta" Resurrected

Works great on Apple Silicon

In practice the terms are often conflated.

Intepreter either writes it in bytecode and then executes the bytecode line by line ?

Atleast that is what I believe the difference is , care to elaborate , is there some hidden joke of compiler vs intepreter that I don't know about ?

For compilers, constant folding is a pretty obvious optimization. Instead of compiling constant expressions, like 1+2, to code that evaluates those expressions, the compiler can already evaluate it itself and just produce the final result, in this case 3.

Then, some language features require compilers to perform some interpretation, either explicitly like C++'s constexpr, or implicitly, like type checking.

Likewise, interpreters can do some compilation. You already mentioned bytecode. Producing the bytecode is a form of compilation. Incidentally, you can skip the bytecode and interpret a program by, for example, walking its abstract syntax tree.

Also, compilers don't necessarily create binaries that are immediately runnable. Java's compiler, for example, produces JVM bytecode, which requires a JVM to be run. And TypeScript's compiler outputs JavaScript.

I don't know what the difference is , I know there can be intepreters of compilers but generally speaking it's hard to find compilers of intepreters

Eg C++ has compilers , intepreters both (cpi) , gcc

Js doesn't have compilers IIRC , it can have transpilers Js2c is good one but i am not sure if they are failsafe (70% ready) ,

I also have to thank you , this is a great comment