Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!nntpspool01.opticnetworks.net!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Arne_Vajh=c3=b8j?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: questions re Javascript Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 22:53:01 -0400 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 78 Message-ID: References: <83722e36-4afe-4077-b936-229450613698@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 1lM8B9/qdtKBc/uIRK2Gjw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32773 On 9/27/2015 10:59 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/27/2015 8:38 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >> On 9/25/2015 9:56 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 9/24/2015 10:46 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>> On 9/24/2015 10:34 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> Given that the naming convention is also used in C#, VB.NET, PHP, >>>>>> UCSD Pascal, then I think that it is you that are way behind >>>>>> in knowing about other programming languages. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong answer. VB.NET and PHP are interpreted languages. >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> >>>> VB.NET is compiled. By the VB.NET compiler - the vbc command. >>> >>> Yes, but it is not executable code. It still requires the vb runtime >>> executable (not just libraries). >> >> VB.NET compiler compiles to MSIL. >> >> There are no such thing as a VB.NET runtime executable. >> >> VB.NET only relies on .NET framework. > > Try again. VB.NET can also be compiled to an executable. There are no command line switch on the VB.NET compiler vbc to generate native code. >>>>> UCSD Pascal >>>>> (which, unlike you, I DID use) compiled to P-code. >>>> >>>> Which is byte code. >>> >>> That is true - and it required the p-code runtime exeuctable to do it. >> >> Just like Java requires the java executable. >> >> And guess what UCSD Pascal was called a compiler. > > That's right. And it output code which had to be interpreted - not > machine code. So now we agree on that a compiler does not need to generate machine code???? >>>>> And C# is it's own >>>>> thing. It compiles to an executable, >>>> >>>> Wrong. >>>> >>>> It compiles to MSIL byte code. >>>> >>> >>> C# can also be compiled to executable code. It just requires the .net >>> libraries. But it is an executable, not byte code as you claim. >> >> There are no switch to the C# compiler to generate native code. >> >> It always generate MSIL. >> >> And MSIL is byte code. > > ROFLMAO! Still arguing that lost cause? Just to prove once again you > are arguing from ignorance, see > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6t9t5wcf%28v=vs.110%29.aspx Maybe you should read what you link to. That link is to the NGEN utility not the C# compiler. The NGEN utility can generate native code. The C# compiler can not. Arne