From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!nf02.dk.telia.net!starscream.dk.telia.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: pjb@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:03:31 +0100
Organization: Informatimago
Message-ID: <8739zmska4.fsf@galatea.lan.informatimago.com>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com>
 <Xns9D4482A264D8BWarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
 <8143krF7lhU1@mid.individual.net>
 <Xns9D479BA7C3275WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: individual.net M37FbUT07Frm7ldf229uRwPYwrIARGZz5+Cy7phWHwxjIRuTnj
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NDAwYTEyZWE2ZDY1OWViYTFjNjZiMDRkZjQzZWMxZTUyNWIyZWI2Zg==
 sha1:uWMvGToWCDJ6eAdvehQb28rg/1k=
Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwAQMAAABtzGvEAAAABlBMVEUAAAD///+l2Z/dAAAA
      oElEQVR4nK3OsRHCMAwF0O8YQufUNIQRGIAja9CxSA55AxZgFO4coMgYrEDDQZWPIlNAjwq9
      033pbOBPtbXuB6PKNBn5gZkhGa86Z4x2wE67O+06WxGD/HCOGR0deY3f9Ijwwt7rNGNf6Oac
      l/GuZTF1wFGKiYYHKSFAkjIo1b6sCYS1sVmFhhhahKQssRjRT90ITWUk6vvK3RsPGs+M1RuR
      mV+hO/VvFAAAAABJRU5ErkJggg==
X-Accept-Language: fr, es, en
X-Disabled: X-No-Archive: no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (darwin)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9789
Date: 2010-03-27T01:03:31+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com> writes:

> blmblm@myrealbox.com expounded in news:8143krF7lhU1@mid.individual.net:
> ..
>>> > IOW, stay away from the likes of Java, C#, Pascal. Unless you
>>> > have a 
>>> > very specific reason for going in that direction. Your performance
>>> > will suffer.
>>> > Jim
>>> 
>>> I don't think many people would be surprised by these results.
>>> After all Java, C# and Pascal (variants) are still largely 
>>> interpreted  languages, even if they use some sort of compiled 
>>> intermediate code.
>> 
>> It's my impression that most/all current implementations of Java
>> do "just-in-time" compiling (of the compiled intermediate code)
>> to native code, and if that's true (certainly true of some of
>> them), does the language really count as "interpreted"?  Just
>> sayin', maybe.
>
> The "JIT" business is just a distraction IMO. Before any 
> "compilation" occurs, something else (the interpreter) is 
> orchestrating things. Even the JIT "sections of code" are 
> invoked on the behalf of byte code by the "monitoring"
> process (i.e. the interpreter).
>
> So unless you can get rid of that "managing process", you still
> have what used to be called a "monitor process", that is outside
> of the O/S. IOW, an interpreter. In CP/M, the monitor was the
> O/S ;) but I digress.

JIT or not JIT, this has nothing to do with the programming language,
but with the processor.  Therefore "interpreter" or "compiler" have
nothing to do in a sentence with "JIT".

Even a hardware processor such as an x86 processor could be doing JIT
(eg. the Transmeta processors, or some high end Intel processors).


-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__