Why not call it e-Java or Java XYZ or something?
It was only kind of true back then, and not even remotely true now. There really isn't a solid line you can draw between a "script" and a "programming language". To me, something like Python is right in between.
Additionally, explicit compilation/linking/assembly shouldn't be required for a scripting language, even if the interpreter does stuff kind of like this behind the scenes for performance.
“To me, if something acts logically like it is run from top to bottom, it's a scripting language.”
I don’t see them as scripting languages, but that definition would include them.
Example, consider this mutually recursive definition at the top level:
a = 1:b
b = 2:a
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28711563/ddg#28711778
You broadly dismissed my entire comment, which was completely correct about Ocaml, but I accept that you are correct about Haskell.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csh...
I think "scripting" vs "programming" language differentiation is elitist nonsense. This isn't a meaningful boundary. It's more useful to speak of languages in terms of strong/duck/loose typing, syntax, supported programming paradigms, ecosystems, available libraries and tooling, and intended use cases.
I think it's easier to draw the line if you have the requirements right. That's not the line that was being drawn. it was scripting vs compiled languages. It was very clear then which sides Java and Javascript fell on. There are some weird cases now like compiling scripts into different scripts, but in general it's pretty clear, and Python is definitely a scripting language.
Python is actually compiled to bytecode, just like Java. Is it not a scripting language?
Or is the distinction that the Python bytecode is interpreted whereas Java is JIT compiled to machine code? Well, Java didn't get the JIT compiler until version 1.3 - so was Java 1.2 a scripting language?
(Thank you, genuine question)
The whole JavaScript thing was just marketing. In 1995, Java was THE hottest thing so associating it with Java might fuel adoption/acception.
There is an old saying; Java is to JavaScript what Car is to to Carpet.
Re. your compiled question. It's up to the browser on how to execute JavaScript. E.g. Chrome has the V8 engine. This is the VM that compiles and executes JavaScript within Chrome. Other browsers might have different engines.
Java code has lots of structure required to write a minimal program. Java is transformed by compilation into a set of .class files. Then, in turn, a loader loads, resolves all the classes, and begins transforming and executing code.
These distinctions can be muddy sometimes.
The twist is that the JVM (Java Virtual Machine) is also a kind of interpreter, but can do on-the-spot ("just-in-time") compilation of parts of the code as well.
Java is great at what it does, which is not scripting.
But there's a lot of magic involved in transforming Java to class files, and then there's a lot of further magic in resolving, loading, and eventually executing classes.
It's not like writing a basic cache is very hard...or just "borrow" one from an OS implementation.
The super pedant in me, of course, would say they're a sliver in the middle because they're targeted at running in a software-implemented VM instead of on a real machine architecture, and that this isn't all that different from in-memory interpreter bytecode or something like a .pyc written to disk...
But then something like the more complicated loaders for native executables is a sliver in the middle, too. And then you look at something like the AS/400 with super-high level "instructions" and these distinctions get super, super muddy.