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: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 21:27:22 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 93 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: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 01:25:20 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8b88f1819ae50b8afa97a5cef254b303"; logging-data="10653"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Jl5zg7zbTmFXrCyjmL9/XiYClrGP0zK8=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:5iyvOo2N37KQXJj1anksMpYdtxE= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:32809 On 10/5/2015 9:10 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 10/3/2015 10:57 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> 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. > > You deduction is hopeless flawed. > Not at all. But your English is hopelessly flawed. >>> 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. > > It does require a certain ability to understand abstract concepts, > but we are not the only ones. > An ability you do not have. >>>>> 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. >> >> 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. > > That is the point. > > A language is not either a compiled language or an interpreted > language. > > It is only one or another in a specific environment/tool set > context. > > Arne > That is correct. And Java by default is converted to bytecode, which is interpreted. But I know such a concept is beyond your simple mind's comprehension, as you have repeatedly proven. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================