On 11/05/2010 05:17 PM, Carl Jokl wrote:
You say "bytecode does not need to be binary" but the whole name BYTE
code implies to me a binary format. If it is not intended to be read
Really? So what's an 'A' if not the byte 65? ;-)
I would not call anything based on text 'bytecode' which does program
logic I would call it just 'scripting' or a 'script'.
I was saying that it's not an important issue, but here there's a point
I strongly disagree. A "script" is something that it's still totally
human readable and must be interpreted or precompiled by the executor. A
bytecode is something that needs a lower level processing to be run (not
that it's not ready to be run, since hotspot does a lot of things). So,
JavaScript fits for me in the bytecode category, especially if you look
at the one greatly optimized and 'squeezed' by GWT (which, in fact, is
no more human readable). I agree that JavaScript is not 'pure' bytecode,
but it can be considered 90% like that.
The real point is that 'real' bytecode has been designed with a specific
purpose, and JavaScript-as-bytecode is being repurposed. But as I said,
the whole web thing has been repurposed. Of cours,e I strongly prefer
things that has been designed for a purpose, rather than things that
have been repurposed... that's why I don't like JavaScript.
As a language, I don't like dynamic stuff (if not by specific things).
And if I have to move away from Java, I really want to see something
newer, not a thing as old as Java.
--
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudic thei - www.tidalwave.it/people
[email protected]
--
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.
