Very much so. But you still could compile it to bytecode, the way Java and ActionScript work.Even if you relagated it exclusively to .js files (the "unobtrusive" approach), using code that was compiled into asm for the browser would be an assbackward approach.
Edit. Reload. Try again. The fact that there is no separate compile step makes it a lot easier. The fact that I can enter stuff in the error console, or even the URL bar, makes it a lot easier. And if necessary I can even go down to the command line JS interpreter, as long as my script isn't about DOM interaction. There's Firebug and similar tools. They are not in the least hindered by JS's usually interpreted nature.so this idea that the interpreter makes "the edit-try-repeat cycle" easier is also assbackward, at least in the case of js.
Another place where I don't see interpreted vs compiled making any difference.Altho to be fair, I think error handling is better in most interpreted languages (as opposed to compiled ones), so your point is valid.
The key point is that interpretation vs compilation is a matter of the implementation, not of the language. There's a C interpreter. (More than one, actually.) There's even a C++ interpreter used at CERN, but I don't know how good it is.
On the flip side, every now and then somebody writes an AOT compiler for various previously interpreted languages.