Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: George von Dassow who wrote (10787)	4/3/1998 9:17:00 AM
From: Alomex	Respond to of 213176

Java is compiled to byte code that absolutely must be run through an interpreter... I can't think of any way around that. Actually, just-in-time compilers (JIT) compile the byte code to native code on the fly. So it is possible to run Java without interpreting it.

To: George von Dassow who wrote (10787)	4/3/1998 11:08:00 AM
From: Sam Scrutchins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 213176

Off Topic, sort of I don't think that's possible. Java is compiled to byte code that absolutely must be run through an interpreter. George, I have friends who downplay the significance of JAVA precisely because it is an interpreted language. They claim it is a throwback to the old Basica days. To what extent is this true? Conversely, does the speed of today's microprocessors offset this concern? Thanks for your response. Sam P.S. I read Alomex's response to your message: Actually, just-in-time compilers (JIT) compile the byte code to native code on the fly. So it is possible to run Java without interpreting it. The same question still applies, but with the just-in-time compiler, as well as the interpreter.

To: George von Dassow who wrote (10787)	4/3/1998 12:52:00 PM
From: Robert Boylin	Respond to of 213176

George; <<The apparent disagreement is merely a matter of the directions from which we are arguing. Your post indicated that you hadn't tried Applescript. The upcoming OS 8.2 will have an improved version that is fully PowerPC native code. This will improve performance, obviously. Many use it to automate their work, coordinating multiple software functions and the Finder. You might be pleasantly supprised by it. It makes PC batch processing look like "horse and buggy" technology. Once Jobs became familiar with it's capabilities he jumped on it for Rhapsody as well. Look at Makido.com for archive info. His site is excellent for a programmer/mgrs. views + info for the non-programmer. Look forward to the G4s and the MacOS's integration with Rhapsody's w/ 64 bit sym. multiprocessing. Merced's competitor will have 9 mos. to 1 yr. head start along with a desktop OS. Welcome to the group. If you stay, an e-mail address would aid in sending attachments. Robert Boylin

To: George von Dassow who wrote (10787)	4/3/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: Robert Boylin	Respond to of 213176

George; <<The apparent disagreement is merely a matter of the directions from which we are arguing. Your post indicated that you hadn't tried Applescript. The upcoming OS 8.2 will have an improved version that is fully PowerPC native code. This will improve performance, obviously. Many use it to automate their work, coordinating multiple software functions and the Finder. You might be pleasantly surprised by it. It makes PC batch processing look like "horse and buggy" technology. Once Jobs became familiar with it's capabilities he jumped on it for Rhapsody as well. Look at Makido.com for archive info. His site is excellent for a programmer/mgrs. views + info for the non-programmer. Looking forward to the G4s and the MacOS's integration with Rhapsody's w/ 64 bit sym. multiprocessing. Merced's competitor will have 9 mos. to 1 yr. head start along with a desktop OS. Welcome to the group. If you stay, an e-mail address would aid in sending attachments. Robert Boylin