If the definition of bytecode is that it's abstract, & non-natively-executable by the CPU, therefore requires another layer to turn it into the op-codes your given CPU can understand, then sure both your Java bytecode and your CIL/MSIL meet that definition? You say 'bytecodes are ready for execution', I don't agree. You need the JVM - right?

JVM bytecode is abstract - i.e. it's not your CPU's native opcodes. That's it.

You're agreeing with me: bytecodes are an abstraction, they for the JVM, not the CPU.

Nah, op-codes are ready for execution, bytecodes are not. I like this definition: Bytecode is a form of hardware-independent machine language that is executed by an interpreter. It can also be compiled into machine code for the target platform for better performance.

All correct, but are you disagreeing with 'C# is compiled to a type of bytecode'?

Can you elaborate? I have to say that I agree. Isn't the .NET CLI a type of bytecode?

Don't mind.