But how about the two "versions" (correct me if I'm wrong) of Java: one interpreted and one semi-compiled ? Please explain. Can both IDE's handle both ? Or do I completely misunderstand ?
Fons wrote: > But how about the two "versions" (correct me if I'm wrong) of Java: one > interpreted and one semi-compiled ? Please explain. Can both IDE's > handle both ? Or do I completely misunderstand ?
You have misunderstood.
The Java compiler just transforms the Java source to Java byte code, which you can consider just a binary version of the source.
The Java byte code is then JIT compiled by the JVM.
JIT compilation is real compilation not semi.
JIT is used by the JVM unless explicit disabled with the -Xint switch.
Since this is handled by the JVM then it is independent of the IDE.
>> But how about the two "versions" (correct me if I'm wrong) of Java: >> one interpreted and one semi-compiled ? Please explain. Can both IDE's >> handle both ? Or do I completely misunderstand ?
> You have misunderstood.
> The Java compiler just transforms the Java source to Java byte code, > which you can consider just a binary version of the source.
> The Java byte code is then JIT compiled by the JVM.
> JIT compilation is real compilation not semi.
> JIT is used by the JVM unless explicit disabled with the -Xint switch.
> Since this is handled by the JVM then it is independent of the IDE.
Donkey Hot wrote: > Arne Vajhøj <a...@vajhoej.dk> wrote in news:482e2529$0$90270$14726298 > @news.sunsite.dk: >> Fons wrote: >>> But isn't there also Java -in- HTML that is interpreted ? >> There is JavaScript used in HTML pages.
>> JavaScript is interpreted but it is also a completely different >> language from Java.
> And again: it is completely different. JavaScript could be called with it's > real name: EcmaScript.
It is the name it is standardized under.
The name has never been widely used.
> JavaScript differs from Java more than VBScript from Visual Basic.