Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!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: Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:13:02 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 85 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 14:11:02 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8b88f1819ae50b8afa97a5cef254b303"; logging-data="17899"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18LJReMICS2+OpFPq7MRzFg7HAqlDalEl4=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:4VDug1aI/jgE/nl0kcS+HKQF6M8= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32692 On 9/24/2015 10:45 PM, Eternal Hope wrote: > On 25/09/2015 01:48, 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, > > We've been here before haven't we > Even if you build your own hardware, eventually everything comes down to > the fact that logic gates use binary input. How would you design a NAND > gate that takes two bytecode instructions and produces ... what exactly, > another bytecode? that's Interpretation. Binary output that is used as > input to another gate? that's some gate you have there how many can you > fit on a chip. Most of us here should know that in the end, everthing > gets passed through the adder which can only add 2 binary numbers > together 1 bit, 7 bits, 32 bits, 64bits, 2**n bits, it's all the same in > the end. > Actually, it could be done. After all, java byte code is just 1's and 0's, no different than any other file. And gates work on 1's and 0's - it would be theoretically possible to build a processor with just gates which could process jbc directly. However, it would be much easier to build a processor which had microcode to do it. The difference here is that the microcode is internal to the processor and not available (or even known) to the user. > I don't really understand the point of this thread now, we all know that > a Java translator (I'm going to call it that, 'compiler' seems to get > people all upset) takes human readable source core and 'translates' (or > compiles) it into byte code which is then interpreted by ... yep, an > interpreter. Anything else is subersive propaganda. Even Lew knows this > (assumption) and he/she/it must have been partcularly bored when > he/she/it posted his/her/it's latest bizarre rant. > Yes, translator would be a better description. >> 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? >> >> 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? >> >> 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. >> >> > > -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================