Compilation strategy

[deadalnix]

On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 08:34:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 11:24 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Monday, 17 December 2012 at 00:57:30 UTC, Walter Bright 
>> wrote:
>>> It doesn't hide the source in any effective way. There are 
>>> enough Java byte
>>> code => source translators around to prove that. It only 
>>> takes one such tool
>>> to exist (and it's especially easy to create such a tool 
>>> given D being open
>>> source).
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so that's why java is never used in any company !
>
> Yes, I know you're being sarcastic.
>
> But consider that Amazon uses Java heavily. They don't care 
> about source obfuscation, because they don't ship source code 
> or .class libraries. They don't sell Java code at all. Source 
> obfuscation is irrelevant to them.

More seriously, I understand that in some cases, di are 
interesting. Mostly if you want to provide a closed source 
library to be used by 3rd party devs.

But that is a use amongst many, and is irrelevant for an huge 
amount of companies. Many don't ship code because they are 
providing service (google, facebook, amazon, etc . . .) or 
because they deliver the final binary to the customer (most 
software you can buy are delivered that way).