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>:
> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 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?
>> 
>> The latter seems like the best option to me.. what do you think?
> 
> Sorry, that was not clear enough: the paragraph refers to your
> description of Java.  Java is not an interpreted language - at least
> not completely.
> 
>> Thanks for your feedback.
> 
> You're welcome!
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> robert
> 
> -- 
> remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
> http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
>