Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32683 > unrolled thread

Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 00:37 -0400
    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2015-09-25 08:26 +0200
    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jeff Higgins <jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-25 08:36 -0400
      Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2015-09-25 18:18 +0200
      Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 21:05 -0400
        Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:07 -0400
          Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:39 -0400
            Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:36 -0400
              Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:33 -0400
                Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:08 -0400
    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-25 10:32 -0400
      Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-09-27 21:15 -0400
        Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:09 -0400
          Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 22:41 -0400
            Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:38 -0400
              Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 21:35 -0400
                Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:09 -0400
                  Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:16 -0400
                    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:26 -0400
        Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:17 -0700
          Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-03 10:41 -0400
            Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 21:24 -0700
              Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 08:45 -0400
                Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 10:58 -0700
                  Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 14:23 -0400
                    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:10 -0400
                      Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:26 -0400
            Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-05 22:01 -0400
              Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2015-10-05 22:10 -0400
    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Eternal Hope <laughingspam99@gmail.com> - 2015-09-25 16:55 +0100
      Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:14 -0700
      I don't remember JIT-ing for JDK 1.1 (Was: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java) Jan Burse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2015-10-03 04:56 +0200
        Re: I don't remember JIT-ing for JDK 1.1 (Was: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 23:11 -0400
          Re: I don't remember JIT-ing for JDK 1.1 (Was: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java) Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2015-10-02 23:14 -0400
            Re: I don't remember JIT-ing for JDK 1.1 (Was: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java) Mike Amling <mamling@chaff.us> - 2015-10-04 08:34 -0500
    Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2015-10-06 10:34 +0200
      Re: Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java Silvio <silvio@internet.com> - 2015-10-06 11:01 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#32683 — Translator, Compiler, Interpreter and Java

I'm so confused.
Will someone please clearly explain to me how the terms
translator, compiler, and interpreter relate to the Java language?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32684

On 25.09.2015 06:37, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> I'm so confused.
> Will someone please clearly explain to me how the terms
> translator, compiler, and interpreter relate to the Java language?

Tha Java compiler translates Java source code into JVM bytecode (files 
with ".class" at the end of the name).  This is a bit similar to machine 
code, just for a different processor.  At runtime the JVM will interpret 
the bytecode.  But:

Interpretation is relatively slow so the JVM has a just in time compiler 
(JIT) that translates bytecode to machine code for the platform just 
before execution and then lets the CPU execute it.

There are a lot more details especially about what the JVM does but if 
you are confused we should probably stick with the simple things and 
make sure you understood them before moving further. :-)

Cheers

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32688

On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> I'm so confused.
> Will someone please clearly explain to me how the terms
> translator, compiler, and interpreter relate to the Java language?

After posting this question last night I went to bed and slept. This
morning I awoke refreshed and began to ponder the question again. I have
come up with an explanation that satisfies me. I see that at this moment
there has been one reply to my question but I haven't looked at the res-
ponse just yet because I want to give my own explanation time to sink in
and perhaps mature.

First my definitions.

Translator - using the words worker and translation in a general sense a
translator is a worker that produces translations.

Compiler - A compiler is a translator from strings to strings.
This is pretty much the definition given by Aho, and Ullman in the reference
that I gave elsewhere. Their definition is much more nuanced according to
their usage, but for my purpose this wholly satisfactory.

Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to languages.
This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few self-effacing
leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available here:
<http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html

Most of my confusion was based on the question of whether Java is a compiled
or an interpreted language. I can clear my confusion now by stating that a
programming language may be compiled and it may be interpreted but it cannot
be a compiled or an interpreted language. There is no definition to support
those constructs.

Giants in the computing industry may well view my explanation as the naivety
of a simple noob, or the ranting of a stoopid troll, or the nonsense of the
ignoramus, but it satisfies me. It may even give me some satisfaction when
I look at the list of programming languages on Wikipedia and see that one or
the other of them is declared to be interpreted or compiled.

To those who have or will have taken the time to respond to my request, I
thank you and appreciate your effort, but for the time being I will ignore
your explanations.

I hope that what I have presented here is not too stoopid and that it may
help someone else's confusion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32700

On 25.09.2015 14:36, Jeff Higgins wrote:

> Giants in the computing industry may well view my explanation as the
> naivety
> of a simple noob, or the ranting of a stoopid troll, or the nonsense of the
> ignoramus, but it satisfies me. It may even give me some satisfaction when
> I look at the list of programming languages on Wikipedia and see that
> one or
> the other of them is declared to be interpreted or compiled.

The problem with that approach is that terms are used for communication. 
  If you create interpretations on your own and do not verify whether 
that interpretation is also used by others (or at least in how far it 
differs from other interpretations) you won't know whether you can use 
these terms successfully for communication - which happens to be the 
prime purpose of language.

> To those who have or will have taken the time to respond to my request, I
> thank you and appreciate your effort, but for the time being I will ignore
> your explanations.

Good to know - for next time when you might have a question.

	robert

-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32721

On 9/25/2015 8:36 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>> I'm so confused.
>> Will someone please clearly explain to me how the terms
>> translator, compiler, and interpreter relate to the Java language?
>
> After posting this question last night I went to bed and slept. This
> morning I awoke refreshed and began to ponder the question again. I have
> come up with an explanation that satisfies me. I see that at this moment
> there has been one reply to my question but I haven't looked at the res-
> ponse just yet because I want to give my own explanation time to sink in
> and perhaps mature.
>
> First my definitions.
>
> Translator - using the words worker and translation in a general sense a
> translator is a worker that produces translations.
>
> Compiler - A compiler is a translator from strings to strings.
> This is pretty much the definition given by Aho, and Ullman in the
> reference
> that I gave elsewhere. Their definition is much more nuanced according to
> their usage, but for my purpose this wholly satisfactory.
>
> Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to languages.
> This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few self-effacing
> leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available here:
> <http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html

I think those definitions are horrible wrong.

[for the rest please assume programming language context - plain
English is very different]

An interpreter does not translate to anything instead it executes
something.

Translation and compilation has both an input and an output.

I would go with the following definitions:

Translator - anything that converts from one format to another format

Compiler - a translator that converts from a higher level format to
a lower level format except for the special case where the higher level
format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
reasons are called an assembler

Converter - a translator that converts from a format to another format
at the same level

Decompiler - a translator that converts from a lower level format to
a higher level format except for the special case where the higher level
format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
reasons are called an disassembler

I think these would match common usage of the terms.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32727

On 9/27/2015 9:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 8:36 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>> On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>> I'm so confused.
>>> Will someone please clearly explain to me how the terms
>>> translator, compiler, and interpreter relate to the Java language?
>>
>> After posting this question last night I went to bed and slept. This
>> morning I awoke refreshed and began to ponder the question again. I have
>> come up with an explanation that satisfies me. I see that at this moment
>> there has been one reply to my question but I haven't looked at the res-
>> ponse just yet because I want to give my own explanation time to sink in
>> and perhaps mature.
>>
>> First my definitions.
>>
>> Translator - using the words worker and translation in a general sense a
>> translator is a worker that produces translations.
>>
>> Compiler - A compiler is a translator from strings to strings.
>> This is pretty much the definition given by Aho, and Ullman in the
>> reference
>> that I gave elsewhere. Their definition is much more nuanced according to
>> their usage, but for my purpose this wholly satisfactory.
>>
>> Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to languages.
>> This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few self-effacing
>> leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available here:
>> <http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html
> 
> I think those definitions are horrible wrong.
> 
> [for the rest please assume programming language context - plain
> English is very different]
> 
> An interpreter does not translate to anything instead it executes
> something.
> 
> Translation and compilation has both an input and an output.
> 
> I would go with the following definitions:
> 
> Translator - anything that converts from one format to another format
> 
> Compiler - a translator that converts from a higher level format to
> a lower level format except for the special case where the higher level
> format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
> reasons are called an assembler
> 
> Converter - a translator that converts from a format to another format
> at the same level
> 
> Decompiler - a translator that converts from a lower level format to
> a higher level format except for the special case where the higher level
> format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
> reasons are called an disassembler
> 
> I think these would match common usage of the terms.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

And once again you are wrong.  Although I might differ on some minor
points, Jeff is much closer to being accurate than you are.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32770

On 9/27/2015 11:07 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 9:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 9/25/2015 8:36 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>> On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>> Translator - using the words worker and translation in a general sense a
>>> translator is a worker that produces translations.
>>>
>>> Compiler - A compiler is a translator from strings to strings.
>>> This is pretty much the definition given by Aho, and Ullman in the
>>> reference
>>> that I gave elsewhere. Their definition is much more nuanced according to
>>> their usage, but for my purpose this wholly satisfactory.
>>>
>>> Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to languages.
>>> This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few self-effacing
>>> leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available here:
>>> <http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html

>> An interpreter does not translate to anything instead it executes
>> something.
>>
>> Translation and compilation has both an input and an output.
>>
>> I would go with the following definitions:
>>
>> Translator - anything that converts from one format to another format
>>
>> Compiler - a translator that converts from a higher level format to
>> a lower level format except for the special case where the higher level
>> format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
>> reasons are called an assembler
>>
>> Converter - a translator that converts from a format to another format
>> at the same level
>>
>> Decompiler - a translator that converts from a lower level format to
>> a higher level format except for the special case where the higher level
>> format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
>> reasons are called an disassembler
>
> And once again you are wrong.  Although I might differ on some minor
> points, Jeff is much closer to being accurate than you are.

Feel free to think that interpreters translate from one language to
another, but that is pretty far from reality.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32779

On 10/2/2015 10:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 11:07 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 9:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2015 8:36 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>>> On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>>> Translator - using the words worker and translation in a general
>>>> sense a
>>>> translator is a worker that produces translations.
>>>>
>>>> Compiler - A compiler is a translator from strings to strings.
>>>> This is pretty much the definition given by Aho, and Ullman in the
>>>> reference
>>>> that I gave elsewhere. Their definition is much more nuanced
>>>> according to
>>>> their usage, but for my purpose this wholly satisfactory.
>>>>
>>>> Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to
>>>> languages.
>>>> This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few
>>>> self-effacing
>>>> leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available
>>>> here:
>>>> <http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html
> 
>>> An interpreter does not translate to anything instead it executes
>>> something.
>>>
>>> Translation and compilation has both an input and an output.
>>>
>>> I would go with the following definitions:
>>>
>>> Translator - anything that converts from one format to another format
>>>
>>> Compiler - a translator that converts from a higher level format to
>>> a lower level format except for the special case where the higher level
>>> format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
>>> reasons are called an assembler
>>>
>>> Converter - a translator that converts from a format to another format
>>> at the same level
>>>
>>> Decompiler - a translator that converts from a lower level format to
>>> a higher level format except for the special case where the higher level
>>> format is symbolic version of machine code in which case it for historic
>>> reasons are called an disassembler
>>
>> And once again you are wrong.  Although I might differ on some minor
>> points, Jeff is much closer to being accurate than you are.
> 
> Feel free to think that interpreters translate from one language to
> another, but that is pretty far from reality.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

Arne,

Once again you show your lack of understanding of even the most basic
programming concepts.  I suggest you actually read Jeff's references.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32810

On 10/3/2015 10:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 10:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 11:07 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2015 9:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 9/25/2015 8:36 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>>>> On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>>>> Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to
>>>>> languages.
>>>>> This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few
>>>>> self-effacing
>>>>> leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available
>>>>> here:
>>>>> <http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html
>>
>>>> An interpreter does not translate to anything instead it executes
>>>> something.

>>> And once again you are wrong.  Although I might differ on some minor
>>> points, Jeff is much closer to being accurate than you are.
>>
>> Feel free to think that interpreters translate from one language to
>> another, but that is pretty far from reality.

> Once again you show your lack of understanding of even the most basic
> programming concepts.  I suggest you actually read Jeff's references.

Have you?

It does not attempt to define what interpreted is at all.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32814

On 10/5/2015 9:33 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 10:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/2/2015 10:39 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2015 11:07 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2015 9:05 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 9/25/2015 8:36 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
>>>>>> Interpreter - An Interpreter is a translator from languages to
>>>>>> languages.
>>>>>> This is inspired by the comments of Donald Knuth in the few
>>>>>> self-effacing
>>>>>> leading paragraphs of his article "Literate Programming" available
>>>>>> here:
>>>>>> <http://comjnl.oxfordjournals.org/content/27/2/97.full.pdf+html
>>>
>>>>> An interpreter does not translate to anything instead it executes
>>>>> something.
> 
>>>> And once again you are wrong.  Although I might differ on some minor
>>>> points, Jeff is much closer to being accurate than you are.
>>>
>>> Feel free to think that interpreters translate from one language to
>>> another, but that is pretty far from reality.
> 
>> Once again you show your lack of understanding of even the most basic
>> programming concepts.  I suggest you actually read Jeff's references.
> 
> Have you?
> 
> It does not attempt to define what interpreted is at all.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

Yes I read it.  But unlike you, I understand what it says.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32696

On 9/25/2015 12:37 AM, Jeff Higgins wrote:
> I'm so confused.
> Will someone please clearly explain to me how the terms
> translator, compiler, and interpreter relate to the Java language?

Jeff, Robert is pretty spot on with his terminology.

Languages such as C and PASCAL are considered compiled languages; the
output from the compiler/linker is directly executable code with no
interpretation required.  Once the program is built, nothing else (other
than dynamically linked libraries) is required to run them.

Languages such as BASIC and PHP, which are run from source code with no
intervening steps are considered interpreted languages because the
program running them operates directly on the source code.

Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
(more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because
this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.  The
compile/translate step does speed up the process significantly, however.

I'll also add there is one other type - assembler language programs are
built with assemblers instead of compilers.  The main difference here is
that, since there is a one-for-one match up between the assembler
language instruction and the generated machine code, assemblers are much
easier.  (And yes, I know assemblers have macros which are similar to
inline functions in C++, but the expansion of the macro still result in
a one-for-one match up between assembler language instructions and the
resultant machine code).

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32722

On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
> (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
> code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
> requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
> convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because
> this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
> executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.

The argument that having to run a compiler at every program
invocation makes the language non-compiled seems rather non-intuitive.

:-)

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32728

On 9/27/2015 9:15 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
>> (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
>> code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
>> requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
>> convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because
>> this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
>> executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.
> 
> The argument that having to run a compiler at every program
> invocation makes the language non-compiled seems rather non-intuitive.
> 
> :-)
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every program
invocation?

Now I know English is not your first language.  But your repeated
inability to understand even the simplest of concepts points to much
more than a problem with the language.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32771

On 9/27/2015 11:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 9:15 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
>>> (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
>>> code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
>>> requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
>>> convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because
>>> this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
>>> executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.
>>
>> The argument that having to run a compiler at every program
>> invocation makes the language non-compiled seems rather non-intuitive.
>>
>> :-)
>
> Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every program
> invocation?

You did.

"to interpret the code and convert it to code which can be executed by 
the processor"

This process is what is called JIT compilation done by a JIT compiler.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32780

On 10/2/2015 10:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 11:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 9:15 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
>>>> (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
>>>> code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
>>>> requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
>>>> convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because
>>>> this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
>>>> executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.
>>>
>>> The argument that having to run a compiler at every program
>>> invocation makes the language non-compiled seems rather non-intuitive.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>
>> Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every program
>> invocation?
> 
> You did.
> 
> "to interpret the code and convert it to code which can be executed by
> the processor"
> 
> This process is what is called JIT compilation done by a JIT compiler.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 
> 

No, Arne, that is the job of the interpreter.  But once again you show
you don't understand even the simplest concepts in programming.

You constantly argue with people more knowledgeable than yourself (not
just me).  And you consistently fail to learn.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32811

On 10/3/2015 10:38 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 10:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 11:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2015 9:15 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
>>>>> (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
>>>>> code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
>>>>> requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
>>>>> convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because
>>>>> this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
>>>>> executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.
>>>>
>>>> The argument that having to run a compiler at every program
>>>> invocation makes the language non-compiled seems rather non-intuitive.
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every program
>>> invocation?
>>
>> You did.
>>
>> "to interpret the code and convert it to code which can be executed by
>> the processor"
>>
>> This process is what is called JIT compilation done by a JIT compiler.
>>
>
> No, Arne, that is the job of the interpreter.

Nope.

Conversion from byte code to native instructions is done by the JIT
compiler and not the interpreter. Interpreters does not output
native code. In fact they do not even output - they execute.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32815

On 10/5/2015 9:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 10:38 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/2/2015 10:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2015 11:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2015 9:15 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a
>>>>>> "compiler"
>>>>>> (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source
>>>>>> code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it
>>>>>> requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
>>>>>> convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But
>>>>>> because
>>>>>> this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
>>>>>> executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.
>>>>>
>>>>> The argument that having to run a compiler at every program
>>>>> invocation makes the language non-compiled seems rather non-intuitive.
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every program
>>>> invocation?
>>>
>>> You did.
>>>
>>> "to interpret the code and convert it to code which can be executed by
>>> the processor"
>>>
>>> This process is what is called JIT compilation done by a JIT compiler.
>>>
>>
>> No, Arne, that is the job of the interpreter.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Conversion from byte code to native instructions is done by the JIT
> compiler and not the interpreter. Interpreters does not output
> native code. In fact they do not even output - they execute.
> 
> Arne
> 

The interpreter calls the JIT to compile the code.  But it can do its
job quite well without a JIT - as early versions of Java did.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32819

On 10/5/2015 10:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 10/5/2015 9:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 10/3/2015 10:38 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2015 10:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2015 11:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every program
>>>>> invocation?
>>>>
>>>> You did.
>>>>
>>>> "to interpret the code and convert it to code which can be executed by
>>>> the processor"
>>>>
>>>> This process is what is called JIT compilation done by a JIT compiler.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, Arne, that is the job of the interpreter.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> Conversion from byte code to native instructions is done by the JIT
>> compiler and not the interpreter. Interpreters does not output
>> native code. In fact they do not even output - they execute.
>
> The interpreter calls the JIT to compile the code.

Not really.

The JIT compiler get called even if you disable interpretation with -XComp.

>                                                  But it can do its
> job quite well without a JIT - as early versions of Java did.

Absolutely, but in that case no conversion happens.

Arne

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32821

On 10/5/2015 10:16 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 10/5/2015 10:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 10/5/2015 9:35 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>> On 10/3/2015 10:38 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 10/2/2015 10:41 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>>> On 9/27/2015 11:09 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> Who (besides you) ever said you had to run a compiler at every
>>>>>> program
>>>>>> invocation?
>>>>>
>>>>> You did.
>>>>>
>>>>> "to interpret the code and convert it to code which can be executed by
>>>>> the processor"
>>>>>
>>>>> This process is what is called JIT compilation done by a JIT compiler.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, Arne, that is the job of the interpreter.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Conversion from byte code to native instructions is done by the JIT
>>> compiler and not the interpreter. Interpreters does not output
>>> native code. In fact they do not even output - they execute.
>>
>> The interpreter calls the JIT to compile the code.
> 
> Not really.
> 
> The JIT compiler get called even if you disable interpretation with -XComp.
> 

Once again you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

>>                                                  But it can do its
>> job quite well without a JIT - as early versions of Java did.
> 
> Absolutely, but in that case no conversion happens.
> 
> Arne
> 
> 

Arne, I suggest you stand up and take a load off your brain.


-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32765

On 9/25/2015 10:32 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Languages such as Java are somewhere in between.  There is a "compiler"
> > (more properly called a "translator", IMHO) which converts the source

And yet the Java purveyors and experts all call it a "compiler". I think I'll stick with those who, as Eternal Hope pointed out, are most likely to have it right.

> > code to a byte code.  But this byte code does not run natively; it

Bytecode (one word, btw) is also not Java.

> > requires another program (like the jvm) to interpret the code and
> > convert it to code which can be executed by the processor.  But because

Yes, bytecode is (mostly) interpreted. Not so Java.

> > this interpretation must be performed every time the program is
> > executed, Java is considered an interpreted language.

Java is not interpreted every time the program is run. Premise invalid.

-- 
Lew

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web