MOO-cows Mailing List Archive


RE: MOO into C

From:  dg[]
Sent:  Wednesday, July 24, 1996 3:06 PM
To:  moo-cows
Subject:  Re: MOO into C

>If all meaningful programs will decompile, does that mean they are
>reversable and that a decompiled optmized method will recompile into a
>usable form?

That was what I was meaning, yes. If so, then integrating an optimiser   
be as simple as a optimise() builtin (you'd still have to write it, of
course). If optimised code is *not* decompilable, then things would be a   
more complicated because you'd have to save the text version or the
unoptimised version of the code for making future modifications.

>I write code like this all the time.  I've been known to do:
>if (valid(object = (su = $string_utils):match_object(the_string)))

Ah, so some of the horrible obfuscations in LambdaCore are *your* fault.   
Religious wars over code style aside, I prefer slightly verbose but   
understood code, and I would like it to *stay* that way unless I   
say I want it optimised, rather than mysterious behind-the-scenes

And why keeping exactly the original code as their are wrote?
I know that a programmer style can be important but I'm still
see MOO like a "Programming-School" Ward. The decompiler can
put the code in a more readable way than some programmers
(like me ;) do.

But, for such transformation, I really think that a standard
form of comments are required, almost for the "copyright" and
for let's other (and the author too... :) understanding what
happens in that.

contradiction is not that free software are among the best,
   it's that   
commercial software aren't the best of   
en Ninoles aka the Baggus Mage aka Baffouille   
finger me for my PGP Public   
Key  | Not knowing where you go
                                 | always   
lead you to
[space must be fill to register] | a Baggus   
 be reach too on until   


Home | Subject Index | Thread Index