Maverick wrote:
I was just trying to make sure I wasn't going to learn yet another
useless language !
All languages are useless. Learning them is priceless. Learn learn learn!
What kind of idiot make a language that's readable after being compiled
?
Plenty of languages use a lite P-code that runs very close to the source
language. Lua, Ruby, Python, Perl, and Smalltalk (probably in that order of
ascending complexity) all use a P-code that is little more than a compressed
and tokenized version of the input source.
Only the JVM languages - and their wannabes like VB or .NET - use a P-code
that pretends to be a machine language.
And, of course, by now you have learned that C++ is useless unless it
compiles to raw machine code. That's why we use it for system-level
programming.
I guess it's an easy way to steal our ideas and concepts, after all
promoting a product is the hardest part and with a large company like
microcrap that wouldn't be an issue...
If I want to steal your algorithm, I will steal it, and there's nothing you
can do about it. Compiling (and shrouding the compiled code) may raise the
cost of stealing it, but can't prevent it. The CPU must eventually execute
it, and CPUs can be probed.
Companies should compete by responding to customers. I can add features to
my code faster than you can decompile my last version.
SUN only released JAVA for free because they knew you would never be
able to build anything that wasn't open source...
That's a backwards way to say this:
For any language to succeed, the cost of learning it must be as low as
possible. No learner wants to add the primary cost, in engineer-hours, to a
secondary cost of purchasing a compiler. These days, all compilers come
free - in crippled versions.
--
Phlip
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ZeekLand <-- NOT a blog!!!
