Compiling Code.

Page: 1 2
ID:907091
 
Aug 1 2012, 6:09 pm (Edited on Aug 1 2012, 7:35 pm)
Not Feasible
Applies to:DM Language
Status: Not Feasible
Implementing this feature is not possible now or in the foreseeable future
Example
#include "http://FILE_LOCATION.dm"

mob/Login()
    src.Test()


FILE_LOCATION
mob/proc/Test()
    world<<"Meep! :D"


Would it be possible to add a feature to use #include to grab a text or dm file from a site and compile it without the file having to be in the folder?
Aug 2 2012, 1:32 am
...why?
Aug 2 2012, 1:43 am
In response to ExPixel
Why not? It's like including libs in your source.
Aug 2 2012, 7:37 am
It's possible, but utterly pointless. Hotlinking code isn't done by any compiler as far as I know, because if you were to lose connection to the server there'd be no way to compile. Code files are simple text and easy to save to your own hard drive. There's nothing to be gained by having this feature, except a lot of annoyance.
Aug 2 2012, 7:38 am
Lummox JR resolved issue (Not Feasible)
Aug 2 2012, 9:54 am
In response to Lummox JR
Lummox JR wrote:
It's possible, but utterly pointless. Hotlinking code isn't done by any compiler as far as I know, because if you were to lose connection to the server there'd be no way to compile. Code files are simple text and easy to save to your own hard drive. There's nothing to be gained by having this feature, except a lot of annoyance.

I know it "could" be pointless, but it would be nice giving someone access to a library/plug-in without giving them the entire source to it.
Aug 2 2012, 9:56 am
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
Lummox JR wrote:
It's possible, but utterly pointless. Hotlinking code isn't done by any compiler as far as I know, because if you were to lose connection to the server there'd be no way to compile. Code files are simple text and easy to save to your own hard drive. There's nothing to be gained by having this feature, except a lot of annoyance.

I know it could be pointless, but it would be nice giving someone access to a library/plug-in without giving them the entire source to it.

Then request that, instead of something completely different.
Aug 2 2012, 9:59 am
In response to ExPixel
ExPixel wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Lummox JR wrote:
It's possible, but utterly pointless. Hotlinking code isn't done by any compiler as far as I know, because if you were to lose connection to the server there'd be no way to compile. Code files are simple text and easy to save to your own hard drive. There's nothing to be gained by having this feature, except a lot of annoyance.

I know it could be pointless, but it would be nice giving someone access to a library/plug-in without giving them the entire source to it.

Then request that, instead of something completely different.

That is what I requested pretty much.
Aug 2 2012, 10:00 am
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
ExPixel wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Lummox JR wrote:
It's possible, but utterly pointless. Hotlinking code isn't done by any compiler as far as I know, because if you were to lose connection to the server there'd be no way to compile. Code files are simple text and easy to save to your own hard drive. There's nothing to be gained by having this feature, except a lot of annoyance.

I know it could be pointless, but it would be nice giving someone access to a library/plug-in without giving them the entire source to it.

Then request that, instead of something completely different.

That is what I requested pretty much.

Not really, you wanted code to be included from the internet.
Aug 2 2012, 10:02 am
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.
Aug 2 2012, 10:04 am
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.

Sure bro.
Aug 2 2012, 10:08 am
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.

Out of curiosity do you think there is any fundamental difference between:

- you opening your browser and typing in http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/, which then performs an HTTP request to fetch the contents

or

- Dream Maker performing an HTTP request to http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/
Aug 2 2012, 10:09 am
In response to Alathon
Alathon wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.

Out of curiosity do you think there is any fundamental difference between:

- you opening your browser and typing in http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/, which then performs an HTTP request to fetch the contents

or

- Dream Maker performing an HTTP request to http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/

I believe that if they're placed in the BYOND Member Files , there should be someway of hashing them.
Aug 2 2012, 10:12 am
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
Alathon wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.

Out of curiosity do you think there is any fundamental difference between:

- you opening your browser and typing in http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/, which then performs an HTTP request to fetch the contents

or

- Dream Maker performing an HTTP request to http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/

I believe that if they're placed in the BYOND Member Files , there should be someway of hashing them.

Wouldn't make much of a difference really. Just make a different feature request for being able to package libraries in a way that the code inside of them can't be looked at by just anyone. Problem solved.
Aug 2 2012, 10:17 am
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
Alathon wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.

Out of curiosity do you think there is any fundamental difference between:

- you opening your browser and typing in http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/, which then performs an HTTP request to fetch the contents

or

- Dream Maker performing an HTTP request to http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/

I believe that if they're placed in the BYOND Member Files , there should be someway of hashing them.

I appreciate that you think you're suggesting something that makes sense. But because you don't know enough about what goes on behind the scenes, your request makes no sense in its current form.

Its like suggesting an improvement to the tuning of an engine in a car, when you don't know how engines work, instead of saying, 'I want the car to be able to go X km/h'.

I think your actual request is to be able to use libraries in a manner similar to how DLL and .so files work, such that you don't necessarily have to expose the source code of the library (Or need to compile it yourself). Which is a sensible request, although its been turned down countless times (For various fairly decent reasons).
Aug 2 2012, 10:23 am
In response to Alathon
Alathon wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Alathon wrote:
Kozuma3 wrote:
Be it from the internet or your BYOND files, it could contain an entire library , and you could compile it without needing access to the programming itself.

Out of curiosity do you think there is any fundamental difference between:

- you opening your browser and typing in http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/, which then performs an HTTP request to fetch the contents

or

- Dream Maker performing an HTTP request to http://url.to.super.hidden.file.com/

I believe that if they're placed in the BYOND Member Files , there should be someway of hashing them.

I appreciate that you think you're suggesting something that makes sense. But because you don't know enough about what goes on behind the scenes, your request makes no sense in its current form.

Its like suggesting an improvement to the tuning of an engine in a car, when you don't know how engines work, instead of saying, 'I want the car to be able to go X km/h'.

I think your actual request is to be able to use libraries in a manner similar to how DLL and .so files work, such that you don't necessarily have to expose the source code of the library (Or need to compile it yourself). Which is a sensible request, although its been turned down countless times (For various fairly decent reasons).


I understand and yea that's what I meant - Thank you.
Aug 2 2012, 12:01 pm
In response to Kozuma3
Kozuma3 wrote:
I know it "could" be pointless, but it would be nice giving someone access to a library/plug-in without giving them the entire source to it.

What it sounds like you really want is a way to create a closed-source library. That's a separate request that has come up before, but hotlinking would in no way make that easier to achieve. That idea has itself been rejected in the past, because it's too much work for too little gain. Hotlinking code would be unnecessary either way.
Aug 2 2012, 12:18 pm
The problem with closed sourcing is a) you could embed malicious or otherwise uncooperative code in public/closed libraries and b) if used for a team project it would result in disjointed and poorly written projects.
Aug 2 2012, 3:01 pm
If you want a closed source library, make an open source library that acts as a middleman to a closed source dll. You can also obfuscate the code to make it difficult to understand.

A feature that would be sort of like this would be to include a copy of the libraries in the source folder, so if you use it on another computer, you don't have to track down missing files.
Aug 2 2012, 4:42 pm
Why not ask for encrypted DM that can be compiled?

Like this nifty tool - http://www.javascriptobfuscator.com/Default.aspx

Or the many that are available ? obviously no one could decrypt it without the "key"
Page: 1 2