On Mar 21, 2004, at 3:06 PM, A.C.T. wrote:
My reply is: Self-modifying code should be forbidden by law, I really though we got over that about 20 years ago ;-)
And: Decoding bytecode is not necessary, if the byte code is precompiled code (like in JAVA or PHP, which uses precompiled "twostep" code to speed up things). Doing a full interpretation of plain text really will be the slower solution compared to bytecode. I wasn't only thinking of "encryption" here but also of safety, performance etc.
The more "data" has to be loaded the less CPU cache can be used to actually EXECUTE the code. I was used to calculate CPU cycles to make the best of my code, so again this may just be my (wrong) development background :-)
Dave, et al..
Well, as I say, I quitted engineering in favor of Film School, so my background in CS was acquired by buying and reading books rather than attending classes. I personally like the ability to make introspections at my code, this way I can make things more "organic" or better, more inteligent, and make functions that will write functions without a need of recompilation step. As for byte-algebrism in bytecode reading and pure transcript reading, I was talking from the point of me as a programmer not of the CPU... When I talked about decompilation step, I was not talking that the CPU would need it, I was talking that I would need it so that I could understand what that piece of bytecode was supposed to do, so If my software is supposed to parse a stacks script, it should be plain text, not that this is better to parse, but this is better for the humans creating the parsers, or well, that might just be that I like RegEx and lot's of people here come form a non CS background... :D
I know that self-modifying code can lead to secutiry issues, but, as I say, problem is with man, not with the tool. People here have said about standalones limitations of the DO command, and about how almost every language got it's own evaluation command. So, it's really a matter of what your code is trying to do and why, and thats design, I like to possiblities of Rev transcript languages and the design decisions they made.... I think in the end is just about suiting your needs, but that's becoming fuzzy talk.
Anyway, you tested the encryption step I said on previous email?
Cheers
-- Andre Alves Garzia 2004 BRAZIL http://studio.soapdog.org
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
