On Jun 10, 2006, at 9:59 PM, Andy Dent wrote:
Just thought I should point out that anything targeting Java or
the .Net CLR has effectively the same problem as it compiles to
bytecode that can be readily decompiled.
Search for ".net obfuscator" sometime.
If RB allowed you to compile true plugins or object libraries then
you would have the business issue of having to support distributing
multiple updated binaries as different versions of RB potentially
changed the interface - ask some of the plugin developers about RS
history in this regard.
The c++ community has a similar issue due to binary incompatibility
between compilers on the same hardware, although the dominance of
Visual Studio has lessened the effect.
If you wanted to do the maximum to protect code written in RB right
now, the best I can think of is to encode
Andy the owner of "more compilers than I can count" Dent
We might as well ask to have the encrypted option removed then.
At least that would be a little obvious that if you don't distribute
compiled code then you might as well give away your source.
A compiled library of RB code would be great as would a plugin built
in RB.
I'm not holding my breath for when that's going to happen as I think
that was requested about version 1 or 2
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
