language interpreters/ interpreted languages weaknesses?

[David Oppenheimer]

I'd like to take a swipe at Java for just a second.  I don't care if Java is
compiled or interpreted, I don't like it.  I am sure that many of you can
relate to having run into a page where a Java applet is loading and been quite
irritated that while this Java code is loading (being interpreted or the JVM
is firing up or whatever) that your browser (and your cursor too) will lock-up
until the applet is ready to run.  This singular bug (or feature) so
infuriates me that I know I will never spend one single second trying to learn
how to program in Java (or even JPython).

David O.

"Any Sufficiently Advanced Technology Is Indistinguishable From Magic"

-Arthur C. Clarke

Gordon McMillan wrote:

> Garrett Hodgson wrote:
> > Skip Montanaro wrote:
> >
> > > The only thing that makes Java "more compiled" than Python or Perl is
> > > that you have to explicitly run a separate compiler over the source to
> > > create a .class file.
> >
> > that's the real beauty of java.  all the convenience of having to go
> > through a separate compilation step, combined with the blistering
> > performance of an interpreted language.
> >
> > what a deal.
>
> And don't forget the speed of dynamic binding with the conciseness
> and convenience of static typing; the generative power of interfaces
> and the extensibility that comes from avoiding operator
> overloading...
>
> Truly the best of all possible worlds.
>
> - Gordon