Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32762
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-02 13:02 -0700 |
| References | (3 earlier) <mu0g9p$ljt$1@dont-email.me> <mu0mbs$ak9$1@dont-email.me> <mu1hnf$sq8$1@dont-email.me> <3552aa8f-51c1-46f1-9029-b28208c76ee8@googlegroups.com> <mu21gr$pln$1@dont-email.me> |
| Message-ID | <e471dedf-9fa6-474c-9748-908c4ad85f47@googlegroups.com> (permalink) |
| Subject | Re: questions re Javascript |
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 4:40:21 PM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> A Java compiler takes source code as input and produces output that > > > > A Java what? What was that word? Wait, was it "compiler"? A Java "compiler"? So what does a Java "compiler" do? Could it be that it *compiles* the Java language source code? As a result of which the Java code is what? Compiled? And yet Java is not a compiled language? > > > > WTF? > > > > The Java compiler changes source code into byte code. It does NOT > create machine-readable code. > > A compiler simply changes one version of code to another; in this case > it converts source code into byte code. But that does NOT mean it is > the same as compiled code - which (until Java pundits have tried to > change the definition) has always referred to code directly executable > by the machine. It does NOT refer to "assembler code" - which actually > is just a text representative of machine code. > > >> requires interpretation by a platform specific machine that 'looks up' > >> the relevant platform specific instruction and it is that that is > >> executed on the underlying hardware. > > > > So bytecode is interpreted. Bytecode is not Java, in case you hadn't noticed. > > > > Yes, in case you haven't noticed - Java Bytecode IS Java - as opposed to > bytecode in other languages. Bytecode is not Java. The specs are different. The rules are different. languages other than Java compile (!) into bytecode. So Java bytecode is bytecode in other languages (Python, Scala, JavaScript, ...). > > Compilers don't compile into machine code. They compile into assembly code of some kind. The assembly for Java is called "bytecode". > > > > See above. But you've already shown you understand neither assembler > nor machine code - much less the difference between the two. You don't need to attack me. It shows weakness in your argument. I assert that I understand those things perfectly. > > Notice that the C compiler produces ".o" files, which are not directly runnable. > > > > No, they have to be linked to the libraries, first. But that does not > change the fact the .o code is machine executable code; it's just Yes, it does. > missing necessary libraries. But the code itself is executable machine > code. Except that you cannot execute it. > > You are right that *bytecode* is interpreted. What did bytecode get emitted by again? What was that tool called? A "compiler"? Which does what to Java code again? > > > > Bytecode is generated by the Java Compiler. The Java what, again? "Compiler", you say? What is it that the Java *compiler* does to Java, again? > But that does not mean the > result is "compiled code" as is generally recognized by experts in the Yes, actually, it does. > computer community. Only those with limited Java experience consider it > that. Again with the /ad hominem/. Your arguments must truly be weak. > > Again, not to put too fine a point on it, the *bytecode* that gets interpreted (which is NOT Java) is produced by what tool? > > > > And what is the bytecode if it is not compiled Java? Can it be > interpreted by a Basic interpreter? It can be interpreted by a bytecode interpreter. Certainly not by a Java interpreter, since bytecode isn't Java. And why couldn't you compile BASIC into bytecode? <https://github.com/teverett/jvmBASIC> Hm? > >> It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean it's not going to make > >> any difference to the future of mankind is it? I'm more concerned with If that mankind is working with the JVM, yes, it will matter. > >> preventing this solid state Asus thingy from being forcibly updated to > >> the Pay As You Spy As You Go platform called windows 10. Then why post here? > >> Thank god for the gcc compiler and the Linux kernel :-) > >> That is still the compiler of choice isn't it? > >> > >>> To me, the fact that Java has to be run in a JVM is not relevant to this > > > > Java is not run in a JVM. > > > > Then what is it run in? A BASIC interpreter? It is not run at all. It is compiled. > > Java is compiled. The output of the compiler is run in the machine, JUST LIKE WITH C. > > No, Java is not compiled into machine code. Although there are Yes, actually, it is. It is compiled into machine code for the JVM. This machine code is described in a separate, completely different specification from Java. It supports code compiled from many languages (including BASIC). > third-party tools which will convert Java into machine code. the Java > compiler creates byte code. Which is machine code. > If Java were compiled into machine code, it could not run on multiple > platforms under multiple OS's. The fact it can do that proves it is not Actually, it doesn't run on any machine. Only bytecode runs on various machines. > machine code - because every platform and every OS has a different > machine code interface. For bytecode. Not for Java. The interface for Java is identical for all those machines, hence the famous slogan, "Write once, run everywhere". > >>> argument: nobody ever claimed that UCSD Pascal was interpreted despite > >>> the face that its compiler output P-code that needed a runtime translator > >>> to execute it. If you count Java and P-coded compilation systems as > >>> 'interpreted languages' then you must also include, say, 6800 assembler > >>> as an 'interpreted language' if its being run on an Intel box with the > >>> air of a 6800 emulator. > > > > WTF? > > > > I point out again that Java code is not interpreted. It is process through a tool called a "compiler", program name "javac", which "compiles" the Java source code. That makes Java "compiled". > > > > And once again you are wrong. Saying so doesn't make it so. > > Java is not interpreted. Show me where it is. Not on the JVM; the JVM doesn't run Java code. > > > > The fact it requires a JVM to run, and the same compiled code runs on The same *what* code? > multiple platforms with no change is proof. That Java is compiled, is what it proves. > But there are always noobs who think they know more than the experts. > unfortunately, Java seems to have more than its fair share. I guess > that's because java noobs don't need to understand the difference. > > Those of us who have worked for years on multiple platforms in multiple > languages understand better. Those of us who have worked on multiple platforms over many decades do indeed know better. I don't know what your derogatory attitude toward "noobs" has to do with anything. Even in your own post you refer to "compiled" Java code, yet you claim Java is not compiled. You contradict yourself. The final proof is this: Java code is not executed on the JVM. At all. Therefore it is impossible that Java code is interpreted. -- Lew
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
questions re Javascript rdelaney2001@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 15:26 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-01 23:26 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 10:00 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 05:32 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:17 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 05:33 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:42 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-01 20:00 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 20:40 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 16:10 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:40 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-24 11:21 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 20:10 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 13:18 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 19:40 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 01:15 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:25 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 03:46 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 09:59 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:32 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:02 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-02 16:24 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 23:02 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 13:30 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 21:31 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 07:48 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 20:53 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:46 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:00 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 21:19 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:26 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:32 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-24 16:58 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-24 21:45 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 18:27 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 19:53 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:03 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:34 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:46 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 09:56 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-25 10:15 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 11:44 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-25 14:09 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 15:15 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:45 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 22:48 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-28 03:29 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 00:02 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-28 11:33 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 10:44 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:42 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 22:51 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:38 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 22:59 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:47 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:48 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:53 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:52 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:03 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 21:25 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:41 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:11 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:19 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:27 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 22:30 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:42 -0400
Re: Aho, A. V., & Ullman, J. D. (1972). The theory of parsing, translation, and compiling. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 23:26 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 23:07 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 23:55 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:46 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-25 05:20 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:54 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:05 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:36 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:57 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:10 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 21:27 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:19 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 03:46 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 23:35 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 13:10 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 19:55 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 00:48 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 20:55 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 11:17 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:30 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 17:00 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 14:03 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 14:14 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 19:59 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 17:13 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 22:15 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:07 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 16:48 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:02 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 17:32 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 03:45 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:13 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 21:58 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:34 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:35 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:51 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 23:00 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:17 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2015-09-24 12:04 -0400
csiph-web