doG

Ummmm.......NO! Magnetism is not electron flow, that is electricity.

They're not really native machine code then are they? What do you suppose you'd get if you run such a compiled application through an x86 disassembler? I suspect it wouldn't be x86 instructions since it needs a runtime engine to execute.

It's perfectly clear. There is still a distinction between them though. Languages that have been traditionally classified as compiled languages like C, Fortran and Pascal produce executables that are stored in native code and begin executing as native code as soon as they are called. Languages that use a just in time compiler do not. They use processor clock cycles to produce native machine code that is then executed when they are called. While these languages do not fall under the traditional meaning of interpretation they do not fall under the traditional meaning of compiled either. One executable uses processor clock cycles to convert the code to native executable code and the other does not. Those languages using clock cycles to convert code to run instead of running it from the get go do not fit the traditional category of compiled languages because they are not compiled to native code once and stored, ready to run as native code, but compiled to native code each and every time they are run just as languages traditionally classified as interpreted are translated each and every time they are run.

Neat how you completely ignored the "interpret" there that was clearly explained by the part in parentheses you emphasized. I never said it wasn't compiled, only that just in time compilation is considered interpreted. Both articles on interpreted languages clearly and plainly list Java, C# and VB.net as examples. They are hybrid languages that use a compiler at runtime to interpret the intermediate code. If you can't understand what is plainly said there I don't know what more to tell you.

No, I didn't miss it at all. I specifically quoted that portion of the article on interpreted languages on purpose because it points out that any language that is compiled or interpreted AT RUNTIME is an interpreted language. If you don't agree with that then take it up with the maintainer of that article at Wikipedia. If that's the case you'll also need to take it up with Citizendium since their article on programming languages states: Already have. A JIT compiler is an interpreter, a translator because it translates code into machine executable code at runtime. That's why VB.net is listed as an interpreted language just like Java, C#, Perl and a host of others. The part you don't seem to get is that any language that is translated to machine executable code at runtime is an interpreted language by definition. I've quoted both Wiki and Citizendium to point this out. A JIT compiler, or a runtime virtual machine like older versions of VB used, is a translator or an interpreter by another name. Just because VB compiles to a Compiled Intermediate Language does not mean that it is not an interpreted language. It means that it is an interpreted language because that compiled intermediate language is not one that the processor understands but one that must be translated at runtime to executable code that the processor does understand. Why does it bother you that VB is an interpreted language anyhow? So is Java, C#, Perl and other hybrid languages. For many applications the fact that they are interpreted gives them an advantage over languages like C, mainly cross platform portability. They have their niche, it just isn't applications or functions that require CPU intensive operations like some math algorithms that run for billions or trillions of machine cycles. I've actually written applications with a VB frontend that called functions in the backend I wrote in C and compiled as DLLs to enjoy the benefits of both.

Interpreted language VB.net code, as well as previous VB versions, is compiled to an intermediate form by default, pcode or CIL, that is then interpreted, or translated, by the VB virtual machine (interpreter, translator) at execution time. By definition that is interpreted. Sorry, I didn't write the definition but a JIT compiler is a translator, previously known as an interpreter.

Not exactly. You have two options when you compile, P-Code and native code. Both are compiled into an executable but p-code is still interpreted by the VB runtime or VB Virtual machine (vbvmrtNN.dll) at runtime. P-Code is not native machine code and is the default option in the compiler. The native code option is effectively a standalone executable in that the VB runtime is actually compiled into the resulting executable so that calls do not need to be made to vbvmrtNN.dll at execution time. This is effectively non-interpreted code because the resulting executable is native machine code once it is compiled. All references to the VB virtual machine are resolved at the time the code is compiled, not when it is run. This option is not the default because it results in large executables since dependencies are compiled into them. Just because a particular language is compiled does not mean it is not interpreted. If it is compiled to native executable machine code it is non-interpreted. If it is compiled to an intermediate code that is converted to executable machine code on the fly at execution time then it is interpreted. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Who said anything about me not liking the language? I use VB a lot. For many business applications it's a good language. For CPU intensive math operations it sucks. I've written them both ways and CPU intensive math operations can always be optimized by writing them in C instead of VB. Again, have you written any such code in both VB and C and compared the execution time? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This post was on topic in the original thread and shouldn't have been moved. The OP asked about how to approach a programming problem in evaluating math expressions for various values of x. He posted that he had searched for hours on how to do it with VB and couldn't find any answers so I suggested some alternatives.

There's really just one solution and that's storage. Sure, you might can recycle part of the waste but whatever part you can't recycle will have to be stored. There's just not anything else you can physically do with it but put it somewhere safe and leave it there. So the only real questions are where to locate sites and how many?

No, it's drifted on to something else now....

From your link.... Native Windows executable code is not native machine code. It's latest iteration requires the .net framework to interpret and execute the code. Native machine code needs no runtime or any external references to run it, no .net framework. If you had ever actually written the same code in both VB and C and run them for comparison your would know the difference. At this point I must assume you've never actually written any C, assembly or machine code and have never actually experienced the difference in execution time.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the expansion force of freezing water exceeds 100,000 PSI....

If you don't like your job but you need it then it is wise to find a new one before you quit the one you have and downright stupid to quit the one you have before you have a new one. Nuclear power means nuclear waste so we need a place to put it BEFORE we quit what we have. Bascule has it right, this move is retarded unless he's already got a new place to replace Yucca Mountain.

...is not native code, it's interpreted. Tell me. How many times have you actually written code in VB and then rewritten it in C to get it to run faster? I've dome so many times. Believe me, there are times I'd rather use VB because it codes faster but I've written both and there are tasks where VB just doesn't cut it. If VB's just as good as everything else why is anything else still around. No one language is just as good or even "the best" at everything, they all have their niches and anyone that argues differently doesn't really understand why different languages exist. VB is not the grand just-as-good-as-everything-else you claim it to be.

IOW all modern rail services are bottomless pits that governments throw money in because they can't make a profit or fund themselves. I can't understand why we keep throwing money in this one or why we'd want to build another to go with it.

By default VB compiles as p-code which is interpreted by the VB runtime dll. It has an option to compile to native code which does give some performance boost in some applications. This option does create a large executable since the functions in the runtime interpreter are compiled directly into the native code exe. BTW, I've used VB since VB3 in the Windows 3.1 era. It has its uses, computational mathematics is not one of them. Not that it can't do it. It just can't do it as fast. VB's big advantage is very short application development time, particularly for enterprise database applications. It's not an optimal language for cpu intensive operations. Try doing some high speed graphics with VB and then compare it with compiled c code and you'll really see the difference.

How many of the currently 12.5 million unemployed do you think this alleged economic stimulus will put to work? 10%? 20%? How many would it really take to effectively stimulate the national economy as you claim? How many more billions will it put us in debt? So far I'm not seeing anything to support such claims to support this spending without matching budget cuts.

Who said VB sucks? VB is perfectly capable but in the end it is an interpreted language and will never run as fast as code that compiles directly to machine code. For many business apps and database stuff VB works fine but for most math stuff it does suck terribly when it comes to execution time.

I used to advocate simply using the term civil union but now I'm leaning more toward the U.S. adapting to the rest of the world. Other nations are starting to redefine marriage to include same sex couples so why can't the U.S.? The only places where it is strongly opposed is in areas where the government is strongly influenced or even controlled by religion and I disagree with those areas. Religious belief should not be imposed on anyone anywhere. It's time the church quit forcing the masses to adopt its rules and definitions.

I'm not talking about trying to get out of debt, just limiting our rate of spending to slow down the rate at which we are getting deeper into debt. It's more than we need or can afford at this time. Aside from artificially creating jobs just what reason is there that we need, not want, but need a high speed rail system? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Not at all when the point is avoiding bankruptcy on a national level....

How can a man that's already up to his eyeballs in debt borrow the money to build himself a luxury car using the argument that he's doing so to create a job for himself building a car that is fancier than he needs? That is not responsible financial planning by any stretch of the imagination. We cannot borrow our way out of debt. If our infrastructure needs work and we have to borrow the money to work on it then that is one thing. Borrowing the money to build extravagant infrastructure that we don't need, and cannot afford, will not help us to get out of the financial trouble we are in and proposing to do so is irresponsible. It makes no sense at all that we spend any more than we have to when doing so is just piling more debt on top of the debt that already has us in trouble. You cannot grow wealth by increasing your debt.

No I'm not. I'm arguing for the less expensive option, not no spending at all. Please justify extravagant spending in our current financial situation and demonstrate how it represents anything but immature irresponsibility. There are less expensive options available than a high speed rail. If you want a high speed rail then spend your money on it and leave mine alone until we can afford it.

Who are "you guys" and who even brought up C# except for you? BTW, Kant/Kash and TTCalc are not languages but ready made solutions for doing math.

They'd be building a new infrastructure that would cost more than they need to spend right now. If a guy's currently facing foreclosure on his house but needs transportation to get to work should he buy the most expensive car he can find or one that will get him by until he's more financially stable? Only an irresponsible homeowner would opt for the most expensive car and only an irresponsible government would opt for a more expensive transportation system than we need right now. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Why? I pay for my internet service. How is it that anyone that advocates financial responsibility in government is a hypocrite?

I got a response to the second question in that post, not the first. And yes, I think the government should not be looking to spend money on the most expensive transportation options it could invest in right now. The country is already much much further in debt than it should be and it shouldn't be looking for an excavator so it can dig that hole even faster. Right now is the time to cut spending and pay our bill, not take out another credit card. Now, if you want to fund it go ahead but don't spend any of my money on it!

Still waiting....