On C/C++ undefined behaviours

[SK]

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Walter Bright
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> SK wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Walter Bright
>> <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> SK wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean to say:
>>>> Instead of shipping the intermediate code, always ship source code.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>> Why doesn't it make sense?
>>
>> I love open source projects, but off the top of my head here are some
>> reasons that's not a general substitute for TIMI for D:
>> 1) What about closed source software?
>
> Won't work anyway. Java bytecodes are trivially turned back into source.

IMO, reverse engineering technology is not the issue.

>
>> 2) From-source builds may be more complex or resource consuming than
>> could be accommodated on the machine the customer used to launch, e.g.
>> a hand-held device.
>
> I've worked on a Java VM enough to know that won't be a problem.
>

Why waste your batteries running deep and complex front-end optimizers
that have nothing to do with the target platform?

>> 3) The source may have sizable irrelevant content for a particular
>> product instantiation, compile time conditionals, etc
>
> You can run it through a comment stripper first.

Why stop there?  If you have to create some waypoint that isn't really
the source and isn't the binary, why not finish off the platform
independent lifting in the front end?

I am getting zero admission from you that there is any goodness to be
found in the TIMI thing.  I don't understand that.  Do you really just
hate the idea through and through?