[ale] .NET

[Geoffrey]

Joseph A Knapka wrote:
> Geoffrey wrote:

>> Java may well be OO as Smalltalk and C++, but byte code approach to 
>> Java is new, unless you know of something else that predates that.
> 
> 
> Yes, lots. Bytecode compilation has been around for aeons. My
> old TRS-80 bytecompiled BASIC code; many (most?) Smalltalk
> and Lisp implementations were bytecode interpreted. FORTH has
> been bytecode interpreted from its genesis (in, like, 1963 or
> something). Perl has been around longer than Java IIRC,
> and it's bytecode interpreted, I believe. Python has been
> around for (slightly) longer than Java, and it's most
> certainly bytecode interpreted. Prolog is usually bytecode
> interpreted. Almost all languages that don't compile to
> native code compile to an intermediate VM bytecode that gets
> interpreted; it's fairly rare for an interpreter to directly
> interpret a language.

There is a difference though in that the java compiler creates a class 
file, whereas, in the example of Perl, it's all on the fly.  No 
difference you might say, okay.  To be perfectly honest, I don't have 
the will to research this particular issue any further.  The main point 
of the thread from the start was questioning Microsoft as the 
'inovative' company they claim to be.  They do nothing new, just copy 
successes of others, make them proprietary in order to extend their market.


-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

I didn't have to buy my radio from a specific company to listen
to FM, why doesn't that apply to the Internet (anymore...)?


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.