"Mage" <mage@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:42F11EC9.9060603@xxxxxxxxxx > Thank you, I will check this out. My company will switch to a jsp site.
> Isn't jython slower (I mean performance) than java? As well as I
> understand jython code will be interpreted twice.
I believe only in the sense that Java is interpreted twice: once to compile
to Java bytecode and again, as often as you want, to run the bytecode
(assuming that it is kept around, just as .pyc files are).
Java to C and alternatives to Object monitors ... I and a couple of colleagues have implemented a java bytecode to C ...compiler that optimises bytecode, prunes the generated call graph and ... is handled by native methods that manipulate the stack heavily. ... (comp.object)
Re: pain ... Isn't jython slower than java? ... understand jython code will be interpreted twice.... to Java bytecode and again, as often as you want, to run the bytecode. ... (comp.lang.python)
Re: C to Java Byte Code ... It cannot be done in Java,... It may very well be possible in java bytecode,... > to accommodate and reveal those platform differences without failing. ... The "original claim" was not c to java, it was C to java bytecode. ... (comp.programming)
Re: C to Java Byte Code ...goose wrote: ... >> performs a useful conversion, and the specific method used is seen ... It may very well be possible in java bytecode,... (comp.programming)
Re: The State of Smalltalk? ... the suggestion is that Sun's VM will eventually compile something more generic than Java bytecode.... only Java bytecode and will never interpret Smalltalk bytecode.... (comp.lang.smalltalk)
