[r-t] Bytecode [was Attribution (was Seven Deadly Sins)]
mark at snowtiger.net
Mon Nov 7 22:45:45 UTC 2005
> So let's simply compile the original source code instead at
Could do mate, except all your comments and stuff would be in there, so it
would be a bit easy to reverse-engineer, wouldn't it? I suppose you could
have an "obfuscated" source code, but then, why not bytecode?
compared to a "proper" compiled language. One of the worst things about it
is having to fix syntax errors in the runtime environment.
Computers would also have to get a lot faster before you'd want the extra
overhead of storing and parsing raw source code at runtime. The idea of an
intermediate form is very powerful. You do as much compilation up front as
you can, to take the load off the runtime. But you do the actual machine
code production in the runtime, to give you platform independence and the
benefits of late optimisation.
In theory, you only need one runtime per platform, too - many high-level
languages can compile down to the same bytecode.
P.S. Aye Sam, don't quote the digest in your replies!
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005
More information about the ringing-theory