Ryan Davis wrote:
> 
> On Oct 9, 2007, at 13:08 , mortee wrote:
> 
>> However, the argument still applies that (at least in its current state)
>> it can't handle some of the constructs that make it worthwile coding in
>> Ruby, and which most probably appear at many places in any Ruby code not
>> written directly in C coding style. So it still seems to be true that if
>> one codes against your software's requirements, she looses the main
>> advantages Ruby provides.
> 
> I can't vouch for your code, but it took me less than 15 minutes to
> convert our original client's code over to a form that obfuscated just
> fine. IMO, the readability of the code was not compromised. They were
> able to maintain it in such a form and ship their IP as an obfuscated
> binary. Maybe that doesn't work for you. I dunno.

Well, OK. I haven't tried the software myself, obviously, so I'm not
writing out of experience. And I may be misunderstanding something.

However, the website states, among other things:

"Exception handling and generic block closures currently don't translate."

To me, this means that you can't use code blocks passed to functions -
which makes any iterators unusable. I'm not sure however whether I
understand this right - that's why I wrote in my first post to this
thread: "please correct me if I'm overly wrong".

mortee