is there any other way, besides writing a compiler, to hide source code?
Rishi
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 2:36 AM
Subject: [REBOL] rebol weak points (i think) Re:(7)
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Compiling the compiler into the runtime? Compilers can be small..
>
> Even if it has to be smart enough to compile REBOL?
>
> > Wheres the problem? yes, by default you have to lookup
> > each call in a table. for speed, to inline the primitives,
>
> Would that really be faster than the current interpreter? Just a
> bit, I think. Is that worth the effort?
>
> > there is a need for hotspot-style compilers. or marking
> > never-changing code by hand ("compile func"). (like
>
> Yes, but that's something different. You can compile if you pose
> limitations, making REBOL more similar to compiled (or compilable)
> languages. But then, what's the point in using REBOL?
>
> I'd prefer a solution like:
>
> my-native: make native! [
> ; compilable REBOL dialect here
> ]
>
> where you can speed up critical code. That would make REBOL the
> most powerful language --- you have speed, and you have a powerful
> high level language.
>
> > if bind is allways bind/copy this works. note we have early binding in rebol,
> > which gives very good hints what will be called (can be reduced to indirect
>addresses IMO).
> > Compiler has to insert calls beetween the addresses, yes.
>
> But then again you need the compiler in the runtime; I have dubts
> that such a "REBOL compiler" could be dramatically faster than the
> current interpreter. If you, instead, express the speed critical
> parts with an ad hoc designed compilable dialect, and then compile
> those, you get a dramatic speed improvement with just a little
> effort.
>
> > i know SM-code is possible, but is it usefull?
>
> It can be. You have the power, but have to use it with wisdom.
>
> > make a block-entry big enough for some usefull code,
> > like add, if, .. and of course indirect call . if
> > you bind to a froozen primitive, copy its code, else
> > insert a call. if you store to a speed-block! , its
> > more costly, and you have to fight with code/data-cache-sync.
> > with fixed block-size one has to insert some nops
> > too. but modern prefetchers may like this way more
> > than interpreter-jumps?
>
> I still think that's not worth the effort, but I might be wrong.
> The "COMPILE ..." or "MAKE NATIVE! ..." solution seems to me much
> simpler and useful.
>
> > Can't be long until he thinks that job can be done
> > by Rebol too. if he changes the language a bit.. If
>
> Why change the language, if you can just add a new dialect?
>
> If RT just includes some kind of fast "byte code" interpreter or
> compiler, then the compiler from the dialect to teh byte code can
> be easyly done in REBOL. It's much simpler, isn't it?
>
> Just IMHO,
> Gabriele.
> --
> Gabriele Santilli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Amigan - REBOL programmer
> Amiga Group Italia sez. L'Aquila -- http://www.amyresource.it/AGI/
>
