Any language that does not compile is an interpreter just FYI. Visual Studio Enterprise Edition can compile that's the difference and humongous one it is...
Oh -- so you're talking about native
compilation. In other words, you don't want your executable to rely on a framework like .Net?
Hmm... but wait -- doesn't VB 6.0 also
rely on a framework like .Net (but not .Net specifically -- rather, the VB 6.0 runtime DLL)?
Interpreted languages can
be compiled. It's called bytecode. There is a difference between native
compilation, and bytecode
compilation, though. Just FYI. (VB 6.0 uses bytecode compilation -- or, more accurately, it uses a bit of a hybrid setup, which uses a native executable to "wrap" the bytecode.)
Don't get me wrong, here -- I am not faulting anyone for using an interpreted language (I've worked with interpreted languages for probably half of my programming life). But if your top priority is to avoid interpreters and interpreted languages, you could try assembly (which I do not recommend -- it is a great skill to have, but your code is not very portable), or maybe C or C++ (which I would be more inclined to recommend, as it is more portable).
To be honest, I'm not sure if any version of Visual Basic released beyond the DOS days hasn't
relied on an interpreter in some form or fashion. I am unsure of your reasons for despising interpreters, but you should know that VB 6.0 falls under that category.