Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jerry Stuckle Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: questions re Javascript Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 20:55:59 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 69 Message-ID: References: <83722e36-4afe-4077-b936-229450613698@googlegroups.com> <47d69c57-6ce4-4f35-9e14-a348a3fbf1f7@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:54:00 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8b88f1819ae50b8afa97a5cef254b303"; logging-data="6573"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/FCydNK/LmLFuU7KTg7t+rdTzpbxEaI2g=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:mKhxXgG1SgdHjaVviUTPSW2H4ok= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32663 On 9/24/2015 8:48 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:55:08 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 9/24/2015 4:10 PM, Lew wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 2:40:16 AM UTC-7, 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. >>> >>> Not at all. >>> >>> What is "javac"? >>> >>> >> Not a compiler as known outside of the Java world. It only creates >> bytecode, not an executable file. > > So, if I build a piece of hardware that executes bytecode directly the > standard SDK javac, which you say isn't a compiler when run on my Linux > box under the JVM, suddenly becomes a compiler when run on my new > hardware? > Let's see you build the hardware first. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air. > Or, If I take an ICL 1900 Cobol compiler (1900 CPUs ran hardwired > instructions) and run it on a fully microcode-based ICL 2900 using DME > microcode to implement the 1900 instruction set, the Cobol compiler is > not a compiler any more? > Microcode is not considered when discussing the native instruction set of the processor. Microcode is internal to the processor, and cannot be executed directly. Machine code can. And machine emulators are also not considered. The question is - can the instructions be executed by the processor without external programs. A microcode emulated machine can. But then nowadays, EVERY processor - including Intel/AMD chips use microcode. Even IBM mainframes back in the 70's used microcode. But that does not change the basic machine code of the processor. > To be clear, in both cases I mean that the binary compiler installation > package is installed and run on the first computer of the pair. The > package is then installed on the second computer and run there, i.e. it > is the same bit-identical binary code that runs on both machines. > > Nope, these are two entirely different things. Again - let's see you build the hardware. Then maybe we can discuss it. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================