From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f43e6,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 10db24,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid10db24,public X-Google-Thread: ff6c8,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gidff6c8,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,12f4d07c572005e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: Bob Crispen Subject: Re: Java Risks (Was: Ada News Brief - 96-05-24 Date: 1996/06/01 Message-ID: <31B0D60C.7175@hiwaay.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 157978536 references: <4o56db$p66@ns1.sw-eng.falls-church.va.us> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: http://hiwaay.net/~crispen/ mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.sw.components,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.edu x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win95; I) Date: 1996-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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