🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <83163@ut-emx.uucp>  writes:
> OK, NeXT is using FatBinaries to do machine code for each processor.
> The bad thing about this is when NeXTStep runs on other processors,
> binaries must be compiled and included with the release.  P-Code is
> too S----L----O----W, and interpreting binaries is slllloooowwww also.
> 
> My solution:
> 
> NeXT code
> 
> Here is how it works:
> 
> 1:  Programmer codes his "killer app"
> 2:  C-compiler compiles the code into NeXTCode which is machine
>     independant, similar to Microsoft's P-code.
> 3:  When program gets to the user, the user uses an installer/
>     "compiler" to convert the NeXTCode to native machine code for
>     his processor.

Perhaps the intermediate code generated by gnu-cc (used on NeXTs) could be
used...it is general enough for use with all the machines gcc runs on...
However, I don't know enough about the issues (or about gcc intermediate
code) at this point to know for sure.

I do suspect that software developers will not easily go for "NeXT code" as a
distribution medium, however.  For one thing, "NeXT code" would -probably- be
(by its very nature) very open.  This is excellent for debugging and
development, but few developers (except perhaps gnu) want to give something
that close to source code away.

That issue does have solutions, though.  For example, if the language is more
like the gcc intermediate code (which is relatively low level) and all
symbols not needed for run-time-linking (rld_* functions) can be stripped or
represented in some encoded format, this is less of an issue.

Already, developers have to go to relatively great lengths to protect things
like licensing code from prying eyes.  Standardized approaches to hiding
information are prime targets for hackers, since the rewards reaped are that
much bigger.  Making something like NeXT code work--both from a technical and
a marketing standpoint--will not be so easy.

Andrew Athan
Objective Technologies, Inc.