robert young
Posts: 361
Nickname: funbunny
Registered: Sep, 2003
|
|
Re: Free As In Lawsuit
|
Posted: Aug 20, 2010 7:43 AM
|
|
> > java is a language with an interpreter, that's all the > "jvm > > platform" is, same as GW Basic in the original PC. > there > > are as many libraries in C/++ as java. > > Robert, if I didn't know better, I would mistake your > flame-baiting for ignorance. ;-)
Neither. just pointing out the many ways that java is captive to Sun, and now Oracle. Spinning either's behaviour as benevolent to the developer community is not a Good Thing. There are interpreted languages and there are compiled ones. java is interpreted, period, full stop. Now, the sophistication of the interpreter to hand off machine code has improved over the years, in all such languages. A .class file is not an object module. A .bas file isn't either.
> > Except in some exotic cases, Java uses the same > interpreter that C/C++ does, e.g. the x86 interpreter -- > which most people refer to as a chip, a processor, or a > CPU.
Cute. I must say, that's the first time I've read that an instruction set is an interpreter. To the extent that instructions are executed in micro-code (a practice that goes back at least to the 360/30), then may be so. I may give you half a point for that.
> > Secondly, there is no "jvm platform". A JVM without the > class library is completely inoperative, unlike the > examples you provide.
I said that there was no "jvm platform", in any meaningful sense. Do we agree? I think what the OP meant was that there is a large ecosystem built with java, and I have no argument with that. There are other languages, notably C/++, with just as rich an ecosystem.
The fact that the jvm cannot exist without the class library is exactly why java is first cousin to GW Basic, and every other interpreted language ever invented. The fact that both (Professional Basic, son of GW) implemented JIT (initial java had none) doesn't make java any better or worse than any other interpreted language. Some java programs, as Pro. Basic programs, may (will??) end up being fully compiled if run long enough.
> > If you were, for example, to look at the Java Language > Specification, you would also see that the language > specification both includes and relies on the presence of > the class library.
Again, that just means it's an interpreted language. The fancier term, these days, is dynamic binding, but it boils down to the same thing. java didn't do anything that hadn't been done before in language implementations.
> > Please retract or correct your statement. > > Peace, > > Cameron Purdy | Oracle Coherence > http://coherence.oracle.com/
|
|