[calibas]

I think if you combined the two "different" answers to why it's named JavaScript, you get the truth. Yes, it was promoted as a companion scripting language for Java, but that was in part because Java was so hot at the moment, so marketing had something to do with the decision to name it JavaScript.

[JxLS-cpgbe0]

Why "script" though? Aren't Java and JavaScript both script(ing languages)?

Why not call it e-Java or Java XYZ or something?

[mlyle]

How could one consider Java a scripting language? It's compiled to .class files, has no reasonable interactivity, strict structure enforced upon the code, etc. E.g. the antithesis of what makes us call something a scripting language in basically every category.

[JxLS-cpgbe0]

So JavaScript meant "complement to Java, but converted to machine language in the browser, instead of compiled?"

(Thank you, genuine question)

[mlyle]

JavaScript is "logically" run line by line from the beginning of the script. This may not be exactly true anymore for performance reasons, but it's the logical model behind it. A single set of expressions to run in order "a=1+1;" is a conformant JavaScript script; hence, it's a scripting language. It doesn't take much imagination about how to have a JavaScript console that operates interactively from user input.

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.

[pan69]

> So JavaScript meant "complement to Java

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V8_(JavaScript_engine)

[gpvos]

More like interpreted rather than compiled. (I'm pretty sure a google search on "interpreted versus compiled" will get you up to speed with the basics on this point.) This is generally seen as one of the main differences between "scripting" and "serious" languages.

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.

[hi41]

Sorry I am not an expert in Java, but doesn’t the jvm execute the .class files like bash would execute the .sh scripts.

[layer8]

Class files contain compiled bytecode, not source code like shell scripts do. “Script” implies human-readable source code. Java bytecode is binary, a kind of portable machine language.

[mlyle]

Of course, there's murky things like Python which make bytecode compiled forms behind the scene.

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.

[colejohnson66]

PHP does the same. It’s compiled to a bytecode before execution. But I don’t think it’s cached anywhere like Python (but that may have changed in the decade since I’ve used it)

[hi41]

Does this mean java .class falls in the middle of scripts and native executables? Is this analogy correct? For example, I think of native executable as Microsoft Word where you can doubleclick and launch it. Whereas with .class you have to run it on top of a jvm.

[pwdisswordfish4]

No. If you must insist on thinking of them as distinct from native executables, then consider them foreign executable instead—object files written for a different machine architecture and a different loader convention. There's really no middle ground they're occupying.

[layer8]

Not exactly. For one, class files are just components of a program, so more akin to .o or .so files, not executables. That set aside, they are binaries for a virtual machine, the JVM. One difference to real machines is that the bytecode doesn’t have access to untyped memory and to the hardware (not even “virtual” hardware), and some instructions have more complex semantics than you usually have in real hardware, but otherwise it’s not so much different from actual machine code. Overall it’s closer to native than to script, and therefore I wouldn’t quite say that it’s in the “middle”.

[mlyle]

Often even a "native" executable is opened by something like the ELF interpreter, relocated, etc. Yes, a JVM is a lot more heavyweight than these services, but...

[nostoc]

A scripting language is generally thought as a language suitable for quick easy project, less so for large scale software engineering. Verbosity of syntax, compilation, presence of boilerplate code, static typing are all things that make java unattractive as a scripting language.

Java is great at what it does, which is not scripting.

[anyfoo]

I’d like to instead say “static typing without type inference” to be pedantic. I quite like writing scripty stuff in Haskell, and the type system helps in it actually running correctly sooner.

[calibas]

This is all semantics, but the idea was that Java is a "real" language for serious use and JavaScript is a "script" that's much easier to use and doesn't involve all the complications of a "real" programming language.

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.

[sdenton4]

I feel like "requires compilation" is a good first order differentiator. And "has a somewhat sane type system" is another.

[triceratops]

TypeScript requires compilation and has a rich type system. It also has "script" in the name.

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.

[cozzyd]

Well, C++ can be interpreted (sort of, see CINT) and can certainly be semi-transparently jitted (see cling). Although it's certainly not designed for that!

[colejohnson66]

C# 9 added “top level statements” which seems to be the first steps towards usage in a script environment.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/csh...

[wwright]

Templates are turing complete and universally interpreted AFAIK (I don't think any implementation compiles them before evaluation?). There's also features like constexpr these days.

[kevin_thibedeau]

tcc is fast enough to run C code (or langs targeting C) as scripts.

[vlunkr]

> There really isn't a solid line you can draw between a "script" and a "programming language"

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.

[calibas]

The great "script vs programming language debate". The difference is clear to you because you have a clear definition in your mind. The problem is that the definition changes depending on who you talk to, which invites endless debate.

[vlunkr]

Well it's a pretty bad debate if people aren't agreeing on definitions. Hence this whole chain of comments.

[ptx]

Basing the definition on whether it's compiled or not doesn't help much.

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?

[mlyle]

To me, if something acts logically like it is run from top to bottom, it's a scripting language. Python scripts and JavaScript are in this category; Java isn't.

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.

[zepto]

That makes Ocaml and Haskel into scripting languages.

[kccqzy]

You can't just put `putStrLn "Hello"` in the top level of a Haskell program and expect it to work. You can do it in a REPL, but that's besides the point.

[zepto]

Sure. I was responding to this:

“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.

[Scarblac]

I've never seen Java called a scripting language before, actually.