On Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 21:30:44 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 01:41:38 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
Not exactly, I argue that having a bytecode standard is
useless. How a compiler works internally is fairly irrelevant.
Note that in the first place, bytecode discussion has started
with the need of provide a CTFEable module that do not contains
more information that what is in a DI file, as it is a concern
for some companies.
Bytecode can solve that problem nicely IMO. You mentioned that
DI is superior here, but I don't really understand how.
Walter is right that bytecode doesn't solve that problem at all.
High level bytecodes like Microsoft IL are trivially decompiled
into very readable source code. I did that frequently at one of
my jobs when I needed to debug third-party .NET libraries that we
didn't have source code for.
The advantage of bytecode is not in obfuscation. What Walter is
wrong about is that bytecode is entirely pointless.
