Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vegqbe$he8$1@reader1.panix.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.programmer,comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Command Languages Versus Programming Languages Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:52:14 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <vegqbe$he8$1@reader1.panix.com> References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vefvo0$k1mm$1@dont-email.me> <vegiqq$me2$1@reader1.panix.com> <QnROO.226037$EEm7.111715@fx16.iad> Injection-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 15:52:14 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="17864"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Bytes: 2128 Lines: 30 In article <QnROO.226037$EEm7.111715@fx16.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes: >>In article <vefvo0$k1mm$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastartdlyHQ.org> wrote: > >>>Really? So java bytecode will run direct on x86 or ARM will it? Please give >>>some links to this astounding discovery you've made. >> >>Um, ok. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazelle > >There was also a company a couple of decades ago that >built an entire processor designed to execute bytecode >directly - with a coprocessor to handle I/O. > >IIRC, it was Azul. There were a number of others, including >Sun. > >None of them panned out - JIT's ended up winning that battle. > >Even ARM no longer includes Jazelle extensions in any of their >mainstream processors. Sure. But the fact that any of these were going concerns is an existence proof that one _can_ take bytecodes targetted toward a "virtual" machine and execute it on silicon, making the distinction a lot more fluid than might be naively assumed, in turn exposing the silliness of this argument that centers around this weirdly overly-rigid definition of what a "compiler" is. - Dan C.