From:	"Campbell, Rolf [SKY:1U32:EXCH]" <moscoop AT americasm01 DOT nt DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: Not-emulators (was AMD processors and assembly language)
Date:	Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:40:02 -0500
Organization:	Nortel Networks
Lines:	18
Message-ID:	<38D63841.6E0A7944@americasm01.nt.com>
References:	<6ck4dsobcertrd67t6qnet26gti0uq191v AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10003180507280 DOT 911-100000 AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net> <vd16dsc3ebu1s6gumqjb9ps9smdaaofbps AT 4ax DOT com> <cJ4B4.41339$Hq3 DOT 885790 AT news2 DOT rdc1 DOT on DOT home DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	wmerh0tk.ca.nortel.com
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72C-CCK-MCD [en] (X11; I; HP-UX B.10.20 9000/785)
X-Accept-Language:	en
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

AndrewJ wrote:

> > To me, an "emulator" is something that translates one machine
> > language to another on the fly (either by interpreting or dynamic
> > recompilation).  For example, NES and Java programs run on emulators.
> But Java doesn't really have it's own machine language, it's bytecode.  So
> Java programs don't really run under an emulator, they run under an
> interpreter, right?  Unless they have made a native Java processor when I
> wasn't looking?

    Java 'bytecode' is a machine language.  Whether there is an actual machine
that supports it with hardware is irrelevant.

--
(\/) Rolf Campbell (\/)

- Raw text -