home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: pwhite.demon.co.uk!pat
- From: Pat White <pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk>
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.basic.visual.misc,comp.lang.pascal.delphi.misc,comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: "SHOULD I DUMP VISUAL BASIC?"
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:48:29 +0000
- Organization: Too Old To Work
- Distribution: world
- Message-ID: <W1eMJBAdliGxEwNI@pwhite.demon.co.uk>
- References: <4e9g08$3dp@maureen.teleport.com>
- <Pine.SUN.3.90.960126125658.2477C-100000@menger.eecs.stevens-tech.edu>
- <sundial.2191.00464727@primenet.com> <DLvxyq.62w@news.hawaii.edu>
- <4et3p7$79o@cloud9.net> <823335327.28831@williaj.demon.co.uk>
- <4f8akg$i3k@druid.borland.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: pwhite.demon.co.uk
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pwhite.demon.co.uk
- MIME-Version: 1.0
- X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 1.10 <2Q9fOMdw6k3ROpU1Wotwbh3SJe>
-
- In article <4f8akg$i3k@druid.borland.com>, Pete Becker
- <pete@borland.com> writes
- >>Isn't Java an interpreted language?
- >
- >No, it's just implemented that way. There is nothing in the Java language
- >definition that prevents compiling Java, and, in fact, a just-in-time compiler
- >for Java can yield 2x-15x speed improvements.
- In nearly 40 years in computing I've never come across anything in any
- language definition that prevents compiling. That includes BASIC which
- is where this discussion started and p-code. Likewise, they COULD all be
- interpreted, only most companies realise compiling is better. Microsoft
- is the exception - they tried and failed badly, anyone remember their
- Fortran compiler for the PC. When it compiled without falling over you
- were amazed. When you ran the results you were sorry!
- Pat
- --
- Pat White
- email: pat@pwhite.demon.co.uk
- Phone; 44+(0)1925 266113
-