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: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:46:01 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 98 Message-ID: References: <83722e36-4afe-4077-b936-229450613698@googlegroups.com> <3552aa8f-51c1-46f1-9029-b28208c76ee8@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:43:49 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8b88f1819ae50b8afa97a5cef254b303"; logging-data="13756"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TsAHX2A44Qo6XpCIglpBtREI2cjykdpk=" 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:x4/qMroQCxyhWExv/4jZnh3ppmM= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32782 On 10/2/2015 11:02 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 10/2/2015 4:24 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/2/2015 4:02 PM, Lew wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 4:40:21 PM UTC-7, Jerry Stuckle >>> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>> >> >> And how are the rules and specs different? And what do other languages >> have to do with it? > > JVM specs allow constructs in its byte code that are not allowed in > the Java language. > > And such constructs are used in other languages that do compile to > byte code. > And what other languages interpreters can execute Java bytecode? Just because the bytecode is not as strict as the language means nothing. >>> So Java bytecode is bytecode in other languages (Python, Scala, >>> JavaScript, ...). >> >> OK, if bytecode is bytecode, then I can execute Java bytecode with a >> Python interpreter, and vice versa. >> >> I don't think so! > > A Python interpreter process Python code not byte code. > > But Jython (Java Python) can compile Python to byte code. > I didn't ask about Java Python. I asked about pure Python. And yes, there are translators which create Python bytecode. But you didn't respond to my comment. From what you're saying, a Python interpreter can then execute Java bytecode, right? >>>>> 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? >> >> Yes, I do agree it is mistakenly called a compiler. > > Just like UCSD Pascal compiler, C# compiler, VB.NET compiler, > Facebook HipHop PHP compiler and many other do. > Keep showing your ignorance, Arne. You don't understand what a compiler is, do you? >> If you have two horses and a cow, and call the cow a horse, how many >> horses do you have? >> >> The answer is still two. Just calling a cow a horse doesn't make it a >> horse. >> >> A better term for it would be a Java Translator, because it translates >> Java source code to byte code. > > You may think it is a better term. > > But the fact is that entire IT industry is calling it compiler. > > So to follow your own cow-horse analogy then so should you. > > Arne > Can calling a cow a horse does not make it a horse. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================