> uch of the discussion seemed to be more about learning how computers > work, as machines, rather than learning how to program. If my daughter > ever shows any interest in programming, I'll start by teaching her > Haskell. Hear that? That's the sound of 90% of the readers skipping > the rest of this message because I used the H-word. Oh well. But > Haskell gives the most explicit representation of what programs > actually do, as apposed how the machine executes them. Anyone who >
How can that be true when most jvm byte codes are a one to one mapping with a machine code for most popular cpus, inc, ret, add etc. Even the way how local variables and the stack in general looks very similar to how stuff is done in x86 land to some limited extent because of the lack of registers. The method dispatching stuff because of the polymorphism and so on required a few more steps. If anything because bytecodes are so simple, we have more complex languages evolving which add more layers on top to provide higher level functionality that is not a first class construct in bytecode and requires more boring underneath. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
