On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:34:21PM +0900, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 02:32:20PM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:
>
> > On 7/28/06, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Wait . . . what?  When some Java applet (for example) is sent over an
> > >HTTP connection to your computer to be executed cient-side, it is NOT
> > >just source code.  Similarly, when you install a Java application, it
> > >too is NOT simply copied onto the system in source code form.  It's
> > >compiled to bytecode (or whatever the hell you want to call it) and
> > >distributed thusly, for the JVM to run it.
> > 
> > Interpretation does not necessarily mean raw source code is being processed.
> > Even interpreters parse raw source into a form they can understand.
> > Interpretation in the Java VM comes in the form of bytecode interpretation,
> > so called because instead of the system CPU running native operations it's
> > running another process that steps through the bytecodes. This is what's
> > typically called "interpreted mode" in the JVM. However every VM since Java
> > 1.3 has taken the next step at run time and compiled that bytecode into
> > native processor instructions, so that the interpreter is no longer involved
> > for those compiled pieces.
> > 
> > Bytecode is what's distributed, yes, but it's little more than pre-parsed
> > and lightly optimized source code. You can convert it back to source, if you
> > like. Your definition of "interpreted" is too narrow.
> 
> How do you figure?  You just reiterated, in different words, everything
> I said, then held it up as "proof" I'm "wrong".  I think you're
> violently agreeing with me, or something, and don't realize it.

No, just that you left out the bit about JIT compilation into native
code.

K.

-- 
Keith Gaughan - kmgaughan / eircom.net - http://talideon.com/