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 10:57:20 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 80 Message-ID: References: <83722e36-4afe-4077-b936-229450613698@googlegroups.com> <721022ff-9cc5-4f0c-b5f7-65d791985094@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 14:55:07 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8b88f1819ae50b8afa97a5cef254b303"; logging-data="16171"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1Kq/m0E7eg7BrRxJk2zpNHbybWBz3ZVc=" 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:z3bm5ndWyeaIDpgu9H7qdIKUNlc= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32785 On 10/2/2015 10:36 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 9/27/2015 11:05 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 9/27/2015 8:54 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 9/25/2015 8:20 AM, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:32:45 PM UTC-4, Jeff Higgins >>>> wrote: >>>>> Would it be fair for an instructor of early students of Java to >>>>> state that Java source code is compiled to bytecode that is in turn >>>>> interpreted by a Java virtual machine. >>>> >>>> I've always heard Java is an interpreted language, because it cannot >>>> run by itself. A system must have Java installed to run it and that >>>> Java install has different interpretations for the same code to run >>>> on Windows or Mac or Linux. >>> >>> A native executable requires a CPU. >>> >>> Java byte code requires a JVM. >>> >>> Remember that VM mean Virtual Machine. >> >> So Java does not require a CPU. ROFLMAO! > > Java byte code requires a JVM. > > I am not aware of any JVM implementation that does not use a CPU. > Ah, but you said "native executable requires a CPU" and "Java byte code (sic) requires a JVM". By deduction, you are saying Java bytecode (the correct spelling) does not require a CPU. > But the point is that Java byte code only cares about the JVM > interface. > > It does not care about whether it is JVM hardware, JVM software > running in interpreted mode or JVM software using JIT compiler. > > In principle it is not different from what we call a native > image. A native image can run on the CPU it was targeted > at or it can run in a hardware simulator emulating that CPU. > Only you and Lew would think it's not different from a native image. > There is a practical difference in that in the real world Java > is always run in a software JVM and native image is almost always > run on its matching CPU. > Exactly - and that is a huge difference. And a CPU emulator runs ANYTHING compiled for that CPU - not just Java programs. That is a huge difference than a jvm running bytecode. But once again, one you are too stoopid to understand. >>> The terms compiled language and interpreted language are very fuzzy. >> >> Only to you, Arne. To most programmers, the terms are perfectly clear. > > Really. > > I thought most programmers were aware that you can create both > compilers and interpreters for most (all?) languages. > > Arne > > Yes, only to you. Sure, you can create both compilers and interpreters for most languages. But that does not mean the terms are fuzzy. It's all in the output. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================