Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32455 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rdelaney2001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-01 15:26 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-09-24 12:04 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer
questions re Javascript rdelaney2001@gmail.com - 2015-09-01 15:26 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-01 23:26 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-02 10:00 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-02 05:32 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-03 20:17 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 05:33 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:42 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-01 20:00 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 20:40 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-09-23 16:10 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 10:40 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-24 11:21 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 20:10 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 13:18 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 19:40 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 01:15 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:25 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 03:46 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 09:59 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:32 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:02 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-02 16:24 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 23:02 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 13:30 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 21:31 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 07:48 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 20:53 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:46 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:00 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 21:19 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:26 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 15:32 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-24 16:58 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-24 21:45 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 18:27 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 19:53 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:03 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:34 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:46 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 09:56 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-25 10:15 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 11:44 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-25 14:09 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 15:15 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:45 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 22:48 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-28 03:29 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 00:02 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-28 11:33 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-28 10:44 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:42 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 22:51 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:38 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 22:59 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:47 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:48 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:53 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:52 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:03 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 21:25 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:41 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:11 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:19 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:27 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 22:30 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:42 -0400
Re: Aho, A. V., & Ullman, J. D. (1972). The theory of parsing, translation, and compiling. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 23:26 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 23:07 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-24 23:55 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:46 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript e.d.programmer@gmail.com - 2015-09-25 05:20 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 20:54 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:05 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:36 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:57 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:10 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 21:27 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:19 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 03:46 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 23:35 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 13:10 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 19:55 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 00:48 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 20:55 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 11:17 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 12:30 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 17:00 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 14:03 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 14:14 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 19:59 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 17:13 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 22:15 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:07 -0700
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 16:48 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:02 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2015-09-25 17:32 +0000
Re: questions re Javascript Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 03:45 +0100
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:13 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 21:58 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:34 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 22:35 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 22:51 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-24 23:00 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:17 -0400
Re: questions re Javascript Tim Slattery <tim@risingdove.com> - 2015-09-24 12:04 -0400
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | rdelaney2001@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 15:26 -0700 |
| Subject | questions re Javascript |
| Message-ID | <cef9fe09-3475-485e-bd05-28796e775945@googlegroups.com> |
I'm trying to get a handle in what Javascript is, isn't, what it does.... Is it a language, or a set of library routines? If the latter, how are they accessed? Is it used, or useful, for anything besides hovering the cursor over an image on a Web page? What is its relation to Java, as a plug-in? Are they independent? Does Javascript execute/reside 'inside' Java, so to speak? What are the limitations of the language, in terms of hardware, memory access, security, etc.? Thx, -- Rich
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ms5c7l$816$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32455 |
On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:26:38 -0700, rdelaney2001 wrote: > I'm trying to get a handle in what Javascript is, isn't, > what it does.... > > Is it a language, or a set of library routines? If the latter, how are > they accessed? > Its a language, originally developed by Netscape to allow input validation, etc, to be carried out locally on the HTML browser. > Is it used, or useful, for anything besides hovering the cursor over an > image on a Web page? > Yes. Very many web pages are infested with it. > What is its relation to Java, as a plug-in? Are they independent? Does > Javascript execute/reside 'inside' Java, so to speak? > No relation whatsoever. Java is a strongly typed, compiled OO language that was designed to be executed in a portable virtual machine. It can be run in a sandbox on a client system. Javascript is an untyped, interpreted scripting language. The interpreter is usually a component of the web browser. Javascript is often executed without being sandboxed. > What are the limitations of the language, in terms of hardware, memory > access, security, etc.? > Pass. I looked at it many years ago, couldn't find a decently written book about it (I was looking for the equivalent of K&R's "The C Programming Language"), decided I didn't like the language anyway and haven't looked at it since. There are others on c.l.j.p. who may be able to describe its limitations, but you should really be asking about javascript on a javascript newsgroup. This a Java one. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 10:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ms6doe$53k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32456 |
On 02/09/2015 00:26, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 15:26:38 -0700, rdelaney2001 wrote: > >> I'm trying to get a handle in what Javascript is, isn't, >> what it does.... >> >> Is it a language, or a set of library routines? If the latter, how are >> they accessed? >> > Its a language, originally developed by Netscape to allow input > validation, etc, to be carried out locally on the HTML browser. > >> Is it used, or useful, for anything besides hovering the cursor over an >> image on a Web page? >> > Yes. Very many web pages are infested with it. Ha ha, not a fan then. Actually I'm starting to find Javascript invaluable. AJAX is possibly the single most important technology stack when it comes to making web sites more like desktop applications. My commercal sites make heavy use of AJAX and I get universal approval from my customers when it comes to useability. <snip> -- Laughing Spam Fritter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | e.d.programmer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-02 05:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd2b2ad7-67ef-4358-861f-5215e9c094a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #32462 |
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 5:00:58 AM UTC-4, Eternal Hope wrote:
> Ha ha, not a fan then.
>
> Actually I'm starting to find Javascript invaluable.
> AJAX is possibly the single most important technology stack when
> it comes to making web sites more like desktop applications. My
> commercal sites make heavy use of AJAX and I get universal approval from
> my customers when it comes to useability.
Most up to date websites include Javascript these days. Modern browsers like Chrome and Edge are killing support for older web technologies.
Facebook for one loves AJAX because it can run independently, so they can load your newsfeed and a sidebar simultaneously.
If you want to write web code it helps to stick with anything supported by the w3c, and they do have documentation on Javascript.
http://www.w3.org/standards/webdesign/script
Save the following text to a .html file and you can view it in a browser to see a sample of Javascript interactivity.
<html><body><div style='width:100%;height:140px;'><div style="background-color:#D94A38;width:170px;height:80px;margin:20px;padding-top:20px;color:#ffffff;font-weight:bold;font-size:18px;float:left;text-align:center;" onmouseover="this.innerHTML='Thank You'" onmouseout="this.innerHTML='Mouse Over Me'">Mouse Over Me</div><div style="background-color:#D94A38;width:170px;height:80px;margin:20px;padding-top:20px;color:#ffffff;font-weight:bold;font-size:18px;float:left;text-align:center;" onclick="clickMeEvent(this)">Click Me</div><script type="application/javascript">function clickMeEvent(obj){if (obj.innerHTML=="Goodbye"){obj.style.display="none";}else if (obj.innerHTML=="Thank You"){obj.innerHTML="Goodbye";}else if (obj.innerHTML=="Click Me<br>Click Me Again<br>And Again"){obj.innerHTML="Thank You";}else if (obj.innerHTML=="Click Me<br>Click Me Again"){obj.innerHTML=obj.innerHTML+"<br>And Again";}else{obj.innerHTML=obj.innerHTML+"<br>Click Me Again";}}</script></div></body></html>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-03 20:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <msanuu$2hm$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #32464 |
On 9/2/2015 8:32 AM, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote: > On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 5:00:58 AM UTC-4, Eternal Hope wrote: >> Actually I'm starting to find Javascript invaluable. >> AJAX is possibly the single most important technology stack when >> it comes to making web sites more like desktop applications. My >> commercal sites make heavy use of AJAX and I get universal approval from >> my customers when it comes to useability. > > Most up to date websites include Javascript these days. Modern browsers like Chrome and Edge are killing support for older web technologies. Really? What in server side generated HTML 4.01 or 2.0 does not work any more? Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | e.d.programmer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-04 05:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <471d88a0-da29-4697-bac2-5833dd767713@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #32508 |
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 8:17:44 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > > Most up to date websites include Javascript these days. Modern browsers like Chrome and Edge are killing support for older web technologies. > > Really? > > What in server side generated HTML 4.01 or 2.0 does not work any more? > > Arne Who said anything about HTML? I said browsers are killing "older web technologies". https://java.com/en/download/faq/chrome.xml https://dev.modern.ie/platform/faq/activex
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 22:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5613350c$0$303$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
| In reply to | #32519 |
On 9/4/2015 8:33 AM, e.d.programmer@gmail.com wrote: > On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 8:17:44 PM UTC-4, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> Most up to date websites include Javascript these days. Modern browsers like Chrome and Edge are killing support for older web technologies. >> >> Really? >> >> What in server side generated HTML 4.01 or 2.0 does not work any more? > > Who said anything about HTML? I said browsers are killing "older web technologies". > https://java.com/en/download/faq/chrome.xml > https://dev.modern.ie/platform/faq/activex Ah. Guess we have a slightly different understanding of what "older" web technologies are. :-) Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 20:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ms5e7i$su0$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #32455 |
On 9/1/2015 6:26 PM, rdelaney2001@gmail.com wrote: > I'm trying to get a handle in what Javascript is, isn't, > what it does.... > > Is it a language, or a set of library routines? If > the latter, how are they accessed? It is a language. It is standardized under the rarely used name ECMAScript. > Is it used, or useful, for anything besides hovering > the cursor over an image on a Web page? Yes. You can build very complex web applications running client side in the browser and only have web services server side. Like GMail etc.. You can make server side web applications using node.js. > What is its relation to Java, as a plug-in? Are they > independent? Does Javascript execute/reside 'inside' > Java, so to speak? It is a completely different language than Java. NetScape just made a business deal with SUN to use the Java prefix. Also some of the basic language methods in JavaScript are similar to Java. But do let that fool you - Java and JavaScript are very different languages, There are several integration points between Java and JavaScript though: * JavaScript can call Java applets in the browser * Java applets can call JavaScript in the browser * some JavaScript engines are implemented in Java * Java actually comes with one of those embedded out of the box > What are the limitations of the language, in terms of > hardware, memory access, security, etc.? That is more than can be answered in a usenet post. Arne
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-05 20:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msfgbb$945$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32455 |
On 01/09/2015 23:26, rdelaney2001@gmail.com wrote: > I'm trying to get a handle in what Javascript is, isn't, > what it does.... > > Is it a language, or a set of library routines? If > the latter, how are they accessed? > > Is it used, or useful, for anything besides hovering > the cursor over an image on a Web page? > > What is its relation to Java, as a plug-in? Are they > independent? Does Javascript execute/reside 'inside' > Java, so to speak? > > What are the limitations of the language, in terms of > hardware, memory access, security, etc.? Are you still reading this OP? Are you any clearer in your mind? Read what Martin Gregorie wrote upthread, it's nicely succinct although for completeness he possibly could have mentioned that technically Java is also an interpreted language although optimizations like Just In Time compilers tend to blur the distinction somewhat. Ignore the other, (hijacked subject) thread, it's just mental masturbation by people who obviously have nothing better to do. :-) -- Laughing Spam Fritter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-23 16:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83722e36-4afe-4077-b936-229450613698@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #32541 |
On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope wrote: > ... technically Java is also an interpreted language although > optimizations like Just In Time compilers tend to blur the distinction > somewhat. "Technically" Java is a compiled language. -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 10:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mu0g9p$ljt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32644 |
On 24/09/2015 00:10, Lew wrote: > On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope wrote: >> ... technically Java is also an interpreted language although >> optimizations like Just In Time compilers tend to blur the distinction >> somewhat. > > "Technically" Java is a compiled language. Ambiguous. -- Laughing Spam Fritter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 11:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mu0mbs$ak9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32645 |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, Eternal Hope wrote: > On 24/09/2015 00:10, Lew wrote: >> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope >> wrote: >>> ... technically Java is also an interpreted language although >>> optimizations like Just In Time compilers tend to blur the distinction >>> somewhat. >> >> "Technically" Java is a compiled language. > > Ambiguous. FWIW, my take on it is that a language that can be run without a separate compilation step is interpreted (bash scripts, Perl, awk, BASIC) while 'compiled' languages always involve a separate compilation step, before they can be run. To me, the fact that Java has to be run in a JVM is not relevant to this argument: nobody ever claimed that UCSD Pascal was interpreted despite the face that its compiler output P-code that needed a runtime translator to execute it. If you count Java and P-coded compilation systems as 'interpreted languages' then you must also include, say, 6800 assembler as an 'interpreted language' if its being run on an Intel box with the air of a 6800 emulator. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 20:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mu1hnf$sq8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32646 |
On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, 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. > > FWIW, my take on it is that a language that can be run without a separate > compilation step is interpreted (bash scripts, Perl, awk, BASIC) while > 'compiled' languages always involve a separate compilation step, before > they can be run. Well when I went to school (jeez, was it *that* long ago) a compiled language was one where the compiler took source code as input and produced native machine code that was directly executable on the underlying hardware as output. Anything else wasn't and isn't A Java compiler takes source code as input and produces output that requires interpretation by a platform specific machine that 'looks up' the relevant platform specific instruction and it is that that is executed on the underlying hardware. Call it 'beans and bacon' if you like, I call that interpretation. Of course, there are any number of 'interpretations' [:-)] that can be put on words, words are abstractions of reality used to build more complex abstractions of reality and as such can be used to mean whatever you want if you try hard enough. It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean it's not going to make any difference to the future of mankind is it? I'm more concerned with preventing this solid state Asus thingy from being forcibly updated to the Pay As You Spy As You Go platform called windows 10. Thank god for the gcc compiler and the Linux kernel :-) That is still the compiler of choice isn't it? > To me, the fact that Java has to be run in a JVM is not relevant to this > argument: nobody ever claimed that UCSD Pascal was interpreted despite > the face that its compiler output P-code that needed a runtime translator > to execute it. If you count Java and P-coded compilation systems as > 'interpreted languages' then you must also include, say, 6800 assembler > as an 'interpreted language' if its being run on an Intel box with the > air of a 6800 emulator. > > -- Laughing Spam Fritter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3552aa8f-51c1-46f1-9029-b28208c76ee8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #32652 |
On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope wrote: > On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, 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. > > > > FWIW, my take on it is that a language that can be run without a separate > > compilation step is interpreted (bash scripts, Perl, awk, BASIC) while > > 'compiled' languages always involve a separate compilation step, before > > they can be run. > > Well when I went to school (jeez, was it *that* long ago) a compiled > language was one where the compiler took source code as input and > produced native machine code that was directly executable on the > underlying hardware as output. You misunderstood your classes. > Anything else wasn't and isn't Not consistent with the rest of the world, your interpretation. > A Java compiler takes source code as input and produces output that A Java what? What was that word? Wait, was it "compiler"? A Java "compiler"? So what does a Java "compiler" do? Could it be that it *compiles* the Java language source code? As a result of which the Java code is what? Compiled? And yet Java is not a compiled language? WTF? > requires interpretation by a platform specific machine that 'looks up' > the relevant platform specific instruction and it is that that is > executed on the underlying hardware. So bytecode is interpreted. Bytecode is not Java, in case you hadn't noticed. Compilers don't compile into machine code. They compile into assembly code of some kind. The assembly for Java is called "bytecode". Notice that the C compiler produces ".o" files, which are not directly runnable. > Call it 'beans and bacon' if you like, I call that interpretation. WTF? again 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? > Of course, there are any number of 'interpretations' [:-)] that can be > put on words, words are abstractions of reality used to build more > complex abstractions of reality and as such can be used to mean whatever > you want if you try hard enough. There are right "interpretations" of technical terms, and there are wrong ones. Yours is of the latter type. Again, not to put too fine a point on it, the *bytecode* that gets interpreted (which is NOT Java) is produced by what tool? > It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean it's not going to make > any difference to the future of mankind is it? I'm more concerned with > preventing this solid state Asus thingy from being forcibly updated to > the Pay As You Spy As You Go platform called windows 10. Oh, so if you finally ever do admit you were wrong about this, you can say, "It doesn't really matter, anyway", and protect your ego. Got it. > > Thank god for the gcc compiler and the Linux kernel :-) > That is still the compiler of choice isn't it? > > > To me, the fact that Java has to be run in a JVM is not relevant to this Java is not run in a JVM. Java is compiled. The output of the compiler is run in the machine, JUST LIKE WITH C. > > argument: nobody ever claimed that UCSD Pascal was interpreted despite > > the face that its compiler output P-code that needed a runtime translator > > to execute it. If you count Java and P-coded compilation systems as > > 'interpreted languages' then you must also include, say, 6800 assembler > > as an 'interpreted language' if its being run on an Intel box with the > > air of a 6800 emulator. WTF? I point out again that Java code is not interpreted. It is process through a tool called a "compiler", program name "javac", which "compiles" the Java source code. That makes Java "compiled". Java is not interpreted. Show me where it is. Not on the JVM; the JVM doesn't run Java code. -- Lew
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 19:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu21gr$pln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32654 |
On 9/24/2015 4:18 PM, Lew wrote: > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope wrote: >> On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, 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. >>> >>> FWIW, my take on it is that a language that can be run without a separate >>> compilation step is interpreted (bash scripts, Perl, awk, BASIC) while >>> 'compiled' languages always involve a separate compilation step, before >>> they can be run. >> >> Well when I went to school (jeez, was it *that* long ago) a compiled >> language was one where the compiler took source code as input and >> produced native machine code that was directly executable on the >> underlying hardware as output. > > You misunderstood your classes. > No, he didn't. It was that way in my classes in the 1960's and 1970's, also. >> Anything else wasn't and isn't > > Not consistent with the rest of the world, your interpretation. > Completely consistent. >> A Java compiler takes source code as input and produces output that > > A Java what? What was that word? Wait, was it "compiler"? A Java "compiler"? So what does a Java "compiler" do? Could it be that it *compiles* the Java language source code? As a result of which the Java code is what? Compiled? And yet Java is not a compiled language? > > WTF? > The Java compiler changes source code into byte code. It does NOT create machine-readable code. A compiler simply changes one version of code to another; in this case it converts source code into byte code. But that does NOT mean it is the same as compiled code - which (until Java pundits have tried to change the definition) has always referred to code directly executable by the machine. It does NOT refer to "assembler code" - which actually is just a text representative of machine code. >> requires interpretation by a platform specific machine that 'looks up' >> the relevant platform specific instruction and it is that that is >> executed on the underlying hardware. > > 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. > Compilers don't compile into machine code. They compile into assembly code of some kind. The assembly for Java is called "bytecode". > See above. But you've already shown you understand neither assembler nor machine code - much less the difference between the two. > Notice that the C compiler produces ".o" files, which are not directly runnable. > No, they have to be linked to the libraries, first. But that does not change the fact the .o code is machine executable code; it's just missing necessary libraries. But the code itself is executable machine code. >> Call it 'beans and bacon' if you like, I call that interpretation. > > WTF? again > He is correct. > 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. But that does not mean the result is "compiled code" as is generally recognized by experts in the computer community. Only those with limited Java experience consider it that. >> Of course, there are any number of 'interpretations' [:-)] that can be >> put on words, words are abstractions of reality used to build more >> complex abstractions of reality and as such can be used to mean whatever >> you want if you try hard enough. > > There are right "interpretations" of technical terms, and there are wrong ones. Yours is of the latter type. > His is of the former type. > Again, not to put too fine a point on it, the *bytecode* that gets interpreted (which is NOT Java) is produced by what tool? > And what is the bytecode if it is not compiled Java? Can it be interpreted by a Basic interpreter? >> It doesn't really matter though does it? I mean it's not going to make >> any difference to the future of mankind is it? I'm more concerned with >> preventing this solid state Asus thingy from being forcibly updated to >> the Pay As You Spy As You Go platform called windows 10. > > Oh, so if you finally ever do admit you were wrong about this, you can say, "It doesn't really matter, anyway", and protect your ego. Got it. > No, he only admits that it's not going to change the future of mankind. He admits nothing about being wrong - because he isn't. But you don't understand that. >> >> Thank god for the gcc compiler and the Linux kernel :-) >> That is still the compiler of choice isn't it? >> >>> To me, the fact that Java has to be run in a JVM is not relevant to this > > Java is not run in a JVM. > Then what is it run in? A BASIC interpreter? > Java is compiled. The output of the compiler is run in the machine, JUST LIKE WITH C. > No, Java is not compiled into machine code. Although there are third-party tools which will convert Java into machine code. the Java compiler creates byte code. If Java were compiled into machine code, it could not run on multiple platforms under multiple OS's. The fact it can do that proves it is not machine code - because every platform and every OS has a different machine code interface. >>> argument: nobody ever claimed that UCSD Pascal was interpreted despite >>> the face that its compiler output P-code that needed a runtime translator >>> to execute it. If you count Java and P-coded compilation systems as >>> 'interpreted languages' then you must also include, say, 6800 assembler >>> as an 'interpreted language' if its being run on an Intel box with the >>> air of a 6800 emulator. > > WTF? > > I point out again that Java code is not interpreted. It is process through a tool called a "compiler", program name "javac", which "compiles" the Java source code. That makes Java "compiled". > And once again you are wrong. > Java is not interpreted. Show me where it is. Not on the JVM; the JVM doesn't run Java code. > The fact it requires a JVM to run, and the same compiled code runs on multiple platforms with no change is proof. But there are always noobs who think they know more than the experts. unfortunately, Java seems to have more than its fair share. I guess that's because java noobs don't need to understand the difference. Those of us who have worked for years on multiple platforms in multiple languages understand better. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mu2782$cn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32659 |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:40:02 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > No, Java is not compiled into machine code. Although there are > third-party tools which will convert Java into machine code. the Java > compiler creates byte code. > Errr, Java can be compiled into machine code: such compilers exist. GCJ could generate either bytecode or machine code for a quite large range of architectures. I'm only saying 'could' because the website has no news items later than 2009. > If Java were compiled into machine code, it could not run on multiple > platforms under multiple OS's. The fact it can do that proves it is not > machine code - because every platform and every OS has a different > machine code interface. > True, but that doesn't really matter since can decide whether you want bytecode or binary for a supported target system and choose/configure the compiler to suit. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-24 22:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu2b7h$f5e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32664 |
On 9/24/2015 9:15 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 19:40:02 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> No, Java is not compiled into machine code. Although there are >> third-party tools which will convert Java into machine code. the Java >> compiler creates byte code. >> > Errr, Java can be compiled into machine code: such compilers exist. GCJ > could generate either bytecode or machine code for a quite large range of > architectures. I'm only saying 'could' because the website has no news > items later than 2009. > As I said - there are third-party tools which will convert Java into machine code. But the Java compiler creates bytecode. Do you read what you're responding to? >> If Java were compiled into machine code, it could not run on multiple >> platforms under multiple OS's. The fact it can do that proves it is not >> machine code - because every platform and every OS has a different >> machine code interface. >> > True, but that doesn't really matter since can decide whether you want > bytecode or binary for a supported target system and choose/configure the > compiler to suit. > > It definitely matters! If you want the resulting file to be independent of the hardware platform and OS, you must compile to byte code. Compiling to machine code limits you to one OS series (or sub-series) on one hardware platform. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 03:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mu2cdu$i5a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32659 |
On 25/09/2015 00:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/24/2015 4:18 PM, Lew wrote: >> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope wrote: >>> On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, Eternal Hope wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 24/09/2015 00:10, Lew wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope >>>>>> wrote: <snip endless Lew spew> >> Java is compiled. The output of the compiler is run in the machine, JUST LIKE WITH C. Ignoramus -- Laughing Spam Fritter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 09:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mu3jsh$dep$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32675 |
On 9/24/2015 10:46 PM, Eternal Hope wrote: > On 25/09/2015 00:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 9/24/2015 4:18 PM, Lew wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope >>> wrote: >>>> On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, Eternal Hope wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 24/09/2015 00:10, Lew wrote: >>>>>>> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:40:19 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope >>>>>>> wrote: > > <snip endless Lew spew> > >>> Java is compiled. The output of the compiler is run in the machine, >>> JUST LIKE WITH C. > > Ignoramus > > I think you replied to the wrong person. That was not my comment. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-25 15:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mu3lqr$k7i$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32690 |
On 25/09/2015 14:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 9/24/2015 10:46 PM, Eternal Hope wrote: >> On 25/09/2015 00:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 9/24/2015 4:18 PM, Lew wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 12:10:51 PM UTC-7, Eternal Hope >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 24/09/2015 12:21, Martin Gregorie wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:40:01 +0100, 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: >> >> <snip endless Lew spew> >> >>>> Java is compiled. The output of the compiler is run in the machine, >>>> JUST LIKE WITH C. >> >> Ignoramus >> >> > > I think you replied to the wrong person. That was not my comment. > Rectified. -- Laughing Spam Fritter
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer
csiph-web