Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32659

Re: questions re Javascript

Show all headers | View raw

On 9/24/2015 4:18 PM, Lew wrote:
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope wrote:
>> On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, Eternal Hope wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/09/2015 00:10, Lew wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> ... technically Java is also an interpreted language although
>>>>>> optimizations like Just In Time compilers tend to blur the distinction
>>>>>> somewhat.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Technically" Java is a compiled language.
>>>>
>>>> Ambiguous.
>>>
>>> FWIW, my take on it is that a language that can be run without a separate
>>> compilation step is interpreted (bash scripts, Perl, awk, BASIC) while
>>> 'compiled' languages always involve a separate compilation step, before
>>> they can be run.
>>
>> Well when I went to school (jeez, was it *that* long ago) a compiled 
>> language was one where the compiler took source code as input and 
>> produced native machine code that was directly executable on the 
>> underlying hardware as output.
> 
> You misunderstood your classes.
>

No, he didn't.  It was that way in my classes in the 1960's and 1970's,
also.

>> Anything else wasn't and isn't
> 
> Not consistent with the rest of the world, your interpretation.
> 

Completely consistent.

>> 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.

> 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.

> 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
missing necessary libraries.  But the code itself is executable machine
code.

>> Call it 'beans and bacon' if you like, I call that interpretation.
> 
> WTF? again
> 

He is correct.

> 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.  But that does not mean the
result is "compiled code" as is generally recognized by experts in the
computer community.  Only those with limited Java experience consider it
that.

>> Of course, there are any number of 'interpretations' [:-)] that can be 
>> put on words, words are abstractions of reality used to build more 
>> complex abstractions of reality and as such can be used to mean whatever 
>> you want if you try hard enough.
> 
> There are right "interpretations" of technical terms, and there are wrong ones. Yours is of the latter type.
>

His is of the former type.

> 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 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 
>> preventing this solid state Asus thingy from being forcibly updated to 
>> the Pay As You Spy As You Go platform called windows 10.
> 
> Oh, so if you finally ever do admit you were wrong about this, you can say, "It doesn't really matter, anyway", and protect your ego. Got it.
> 

No, he only admits that it's not going to change the future of mankind.
 He admits nothing about being wrong - because he isn't.  But you don't
understand that.

>>
>> 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?

> 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
third-party tools which will convert Java into machine code. the Java
compiler creates byte 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
machine code - because every platform and every OS has a different
machine code interface.

>>> 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.

> 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
multiple platforms with no change is proof.

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.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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