Am 23.10.2002 2:12 Uhr schrieb "Donald Keenan" unter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Wow! A lot of questions! I put in my replies, but mind you, I'm only a programming autodidact and have been at it for a mere three years. > > Does this mean that the act of compiling is always hardware specific? Is > RedHat Linux compiled to work only on Wintel/IBM machines? YellowDog > compiled for mac processors? Yes, you compile for a specific operating system on a specific processor family, you can even set flags (give instructions to the compiler, see below) to optimize the compiled program further. > Is the "compiling" a kind of encryption AND a way to translate it into a > machine readable form? And the machine readable form is not universal > but hardware specific? A compiler (which is just another program, albeit an important one) translates a program a human can write, read and understand (well, up to a point ;-) into binary instructions that the CPU you compiled for can execute. There is no encryption involved, though "decompilers" to go the reverse way are rare. > What about open source code/software? Is this code that is not compiled > and therefore open for enhancement? How does one then make it machine > readable? By using a compiling program? Open Source software comes with the source, the program the programmer wrote, and you can compile it to your platform. Most of the time though, an executable program for a specific platform is distributed as well. Both approaches have their merits and difficulties, which I won't go into. > Are some Unix/Linux programs and software then not "compiled"? > I got a vague and most probably incorrect impression from the article on > Unix that C and C++ was a language developed to move toward platform > independent coding. Am I way off here? That was Java. > Again, it sounds like a company like Microsoft might have to open up > some of its code due to the courts. This means they just reveal what > they have to and leave the rest of the software compiled? They don't give out the source code of those programs. > Isn't Apple's OS X somewhat open? Darwin, the Unix core of Mac OS X is Open Source under a specific Apple Open Source License. But don't get me started on the intricacies of different Open Source Licenses. Have a Google search on "Stallman" instead ... > Are companies like Macromedia given > legal access to how Apple compiles (I keep thinking that this must be a > kind of encryption along with making it machine-specific readable). > Aren't some of the shareware/freeware things out there on version > tracker the result of getting at Apple's "proprietary" coding/compiling? That you'd have to ask the respective programmers or other company executives, I would imagine that the big software houses get insight in proprietory Apple code under NDA. And no, encryption isn't involved. For the "normal programmer", Apple even provides compilers (gcc, a command line program, it is GNU software, GNU will probably come up if you search for Stallman) and a nice integrated development environment with the free Developer Tools. > Apologies if I'm misconstruing the concepts here (esp. "compiling") > Donald > Could go on and on, but there just isn't the time. Bye, Christoph -- G-Books is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-Books list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-books.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:G-Books@;mail.maclaunch.com> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:G-Books-off@;mail.maclaunch.com> For digest mode, email: <mailto:G-Books-digest@;mail.maclaunch.com> Subscription questions: <mailto:listmom@;lemlists.com> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-books%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
