What's wrong with that? All else being equal, compiling will generally be faster. Most languages (Python, Java, Ruby, most Common Lisps, etc) do compile - just (usually) to some intermediate and portable bytecode rather than raw machine code. That's probably what their compiler (Wasabi) does too (except, it seems like they are using PHP/VBScript/JS as their bytecode ;-)).
Sounds good. But, there is nothing wrong with using some other language as your intermediate 'bytecode.' If memory serves, early versions of C++ compiled to C, Arc (basically) compiles to Scheme, Python can compile to C, and many others.
Either way is good in my mind. But, I too, would appreciate some technical details about Wasabi (just out of academic curiosity). I feel like a lot of things I know about it are now outdated.
I hate explaining myself, especially when it shouldn't be necessary. Yes, I know Java et al compiles to bytecode. But in practice you never hit a "compile" button because it compiles continuously.
Java still has javac. I suppose an IDE could hide this from you. Of course, Java also has lots of static analysis tools written for it so many errors are caught way before compilation.
There's no supposing about it. All major IDEs do incremental builds and no one needs "actual, regular, compile processes" as with a command line compiler.
