On 11 June 2015 at 20:13, Travis Scrimshaw <[email protected]> wrote:
> Difficult-to-dechiper can be considered a pro by bigger businesses with > proprietry software to help prevent reverse-engineering (although from what > I've been told, they typically run it through a scrambler before compiling > the code for release). > Not sure what you mean by that. I have worked in the past for a multinational company (>100k employees) on software which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per license, and never heard of that. I am not an assembly guy but I would think that the binary of a non-trivial software is already scrambled well enough (especially in release mode where the compiler is gonna pull all sorts of tricks for optimisation). > However, from my experience, it is the quality of the code, comments, and > documentation that determines the readability of the code, not so much the > language. That's not to say some languages don't make it really difficult; > specifically the non-standard/joke/developed-by-a-guy-with-too-much-ego > *coughmathmaticacough* language, but these are relatively rare in practice. > I agree with you. I would not even consider Mathematica (or Wolfram code, or whatever it is called nowadays) a proper language. Cheers, Francesco. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
