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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: fac41,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 1008e3,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 108717,3ef3e78eacf6f938
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: 
 gida07f3367d7,gide91fe56a56,gida07f3367d7,gid8d81cdf253,gid5b1e799cdb,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.erje.net!feeder.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Warren <ve3wwg@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.modula3,comp.lang.pascal,comp.programming
Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3?
Followup-To: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:18:05 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <Xns9D479BA7C3275WarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
References: <h3sln0$rhm$2@news.eternal-september.org>
 <4BA8BA91.4050905@cherrystonesoftware.com>
 <Xns9D4482A264D8BWarrensBlatherings@188.40.43.245>
 <8143krF7lhU1@mid.individual.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:18:05 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: feeder.eternal-september.org;
	logging-data="31529"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19zTNEdbOqNz0GLToHJUmdcQp6aKbeE6T8="
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Face: 
 &6@]C2>ZS=NM|HE-^zWuryN#Z/2_.s9E|G&~DRi|sav9{E}XQJb*\_>=a5"q]\%A;5}LKP][1mA{gZ,Q!j
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8drORsIrTRjbXaftvCnrwaBQ71g=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:10754 comp.lang.eiffel:595
 comp.lang.modula3:164 comp.programming:16495
Date: 2010-03-26T19:18:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.

Warren