Dear Robert,

I see. Yes, Java isn't always interpreted, strictly speaking. But.. in =
the general case it is interpreted before it is optimized. However, I =
will think about the best way to address this.

It is kind of like how C isn't always compiled... its a very gray area.

I think the definition has to be such that interpreted is basically the =
opposite of compiled.. but even then, we compile Java to bytecode, which =
is then interpreted, which might then be compiled to native code..  heh =
:p

Kind regards,
Samuel

On 3/05/2010, at 10:43 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

> 2010/5/3 Samuel Williams <space.ship.traveller / gmail.com>:
>=20
>>> Then, you could argue that Ruby is even more object oriented than =
Java because it does not have primitive types.  Also, the ascription =
that it is an interpreted languages is at least incorrect in two ways: =
it insinuates that it is slower than compiled languages - which it is =
not - and it misses the point of modern HotSpot JVM's with dynamic =
compilation of byte code into machine code.
>>=20
>> Are you saying that I should not describe Ruby as an interpreted =
language? Or, should I discuss that interpreted languages can be as fast =
as compiled languages through advanced techniques such as hotspot =
compilation?
>>=20
>> The latter seems like the best option to me.. what do you think?
>=20
> Sorry, that was not clear enough: the paragraph refers to your
> description of Java.  Java is not an interpreted language - at least
> not completely.
>=20
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>=20
> You're welcome!
>=20
> Kind regards
>=20
> robert
>=20
> --=20
> remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
> http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
>=20