On Oct 9, 2007, at 2:05 PM, Eric Hodel wrote:

> On Oct 9, 2007, at 09:22 , mortee wrote:
>> John Joyce wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
>>>> Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been  
>>>> used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a  
>>>> $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non- 
>>>> serious. Let me know if you're serious.
>>> Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just  
>>> write it in
>>> C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
>>
>> The price isn't the really interesting point here - if lack of  
>> this kind of obfuscation would be the show-stopper for an ISV,  
>> this price isn't all that unaffordable (especially in the US I  
>> guess). But this has alerady been pointed out.
>>
>> My main concern would be, after reading the announcement page,  
>> that based on the software's restrictions (which is printed with  
>> half the font size near the bottom of the page), I guess there's  
>> virtually no Ruby code which meets those requirements. If for no  
>> other reason, just because it uses libraries which aren't designed  
>> with that in mind.
>
> Why would you obfuscate external libraries?  You only need to  
> obfuscate your intellectual property.  Leave everything else in ruby.
>
> --
> Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
> best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate  
> Wars
>
>
>
Still, I ask, why obfuscate at all? If it is for security reasons,  
there are better solutions.
You get paid for your skills. If you're worried about job security,  
just write code that works in a bad style (think really ugly style Perl)