News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak. Parent comment

Re:Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak by mattmaroon on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @04:27PM (#215255)
Can we all just agree that whether or not Java is an interpreted language is not really relevant to the post? Let's direct further criticism at the arguments and conclusions rather than small technical gaffes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak by sophist on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @04:31PM (#215266)
I don't think anyone is claiming that Java is an interpreted language. The claim is that "interpreted language" to most managerial, non-hacker PHB types means "a language that at some point during execution requires interpretation."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak by mattmaroon on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @05:33PM (#215345)
I don't think non-hacker types even know what an interpreted language is. It's simply part of his explanation as to why flash would be an end run around iTunes. Even if he made a minor technical gaffe in calling Java an interpreted language or whatever (he also called Flex a language and a framework, when the language is action script right?) it's entirely irrelevant.

Anally nitpicking at that sort of thing does nothing to further discussion, and I hate to see it here so often.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak by sophist on Wednesday June 11, 2008 @06:30PM (#215396)
I don't think non-hacker types even know what an interpreted language is.

That was actually my point. When someone doesn't know the technical meaning of a phrase, they generally assume the literal and broad meaning of it. The target audience for the original blog post presumably falls mainly into that category.

And just because something is not of particular interest to you doesn't make it anal nitpicking that "does nothing to further discussion."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Flash on iPhone would be a huge revenue leak by mattmaroon on Thursday June 12, 2008 @01:41AM (#215694)
It is of interest to me, it's just a minor technical mistake that has no relevance whatsoever to the overall article, and is therefore nitpicking.
[ Parent | on HN ]