Re: Java Risks (Was: Ada News Brief - 96-05-24

[Bob Crispen <crispen@hiwaay.net>]

Jon S Anthony wrote:

>>   Interpreted code is relatively easy to reverse-engineer. Consequently,
>>   it is harder to protect proprietary algorithms.
>
>Really?  Presumably this is relative to machine code, but it is just
>plain not true.  If for no other reason than one implementation's
>"interpreted" code could become another's "machine" code.

Yup.  Having written a 6809 disassembler (wonderful chip!) and a Forth
decompiler, I can state unequivocally that disassemblers are easier.
And remember, I had all the Forth environment around, so it was no trick
at all to get the name from the compiled address.  But it's them ifs and
loops that getcha.  And Forth is scarcely a high-level language to begin
with.

But so I don't get mistaken by Robert Dewar for the first guy who mentioned
good old Forth here, let me ask him, are you sure the JVM is threaded?
It would seem like quite a waste of processor power, especially when you
don't need to do much fancy business like single stepping in the normal
course of events.  And it must be a nightmare converting addresses between
machines.  One reason Forth threading was fast was that you knew the exact
address where everything was.  Well I suppose I could go to the manual
and find out.

>This
>actually happened with P-code and there has even been some talk about
>it with respect to J-code.  Again, this just plain makes no sense.

Ditto for Forth.  Anybody remember the Forth machine?  It was a little
hummer.

Bob Crispen
crispen@hiwaay.net