On Wed, Jun 29, 2005, Nzer Zaidenberg wrote about "Re: compiling expect sources or easy to use c++ engine?": > the problem is that since the xxx.exp is script (readable to all) all the > code is provided to the customer. > we don't want that so i want to either rewrite it with C++ engine (similar to > expect) or > compile xxx.exp to xxx.a.out (make the source invisible!) > is it feasible?
Since the majority of subscribers to this list, me included, are free software fanatics ( ;-) ), it will be hard for you to get a real answer on this question here, even if the answer was a definite yes. But to the point: No, I don't personally know of a TCL (that's the language behind Expect) compilation tool - but I'd assume one exists as TCL is a very mature language (I've used over a decade ago) and you should just try "TCL compiler" on Google or something. But for your obfuscation purposes, why a compiler at all? Why not just use some silly obfuscation (or "encryption", if you'd like to call it that..) on the script, and when you want to run it, just unobfuscate it before running it? Yes, this method is insecure because users can figure out how to unobfuscate your code. But they can also figure out how to uncompile your compiled code, so what's the point really? I've never heard of any computer cracker of software "pirate" being stopped, or even slowed down considerably, by code being compiled. So I find it sad that people feel they must hide their code by compilation. -- Nadav Har'El | Wednesday, Jun 29 2005, 22 Sivan 5765 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |----------------------------------------- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |What's the greatest world-wide use of http://nadav.harel.org.il |cowhide? To hold cows together. ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
