James Dinkel wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.  There would be some startup-time savings if it 
> just converted to bytecode once, saved it to disk, and then could be 
> loaded straight from bytecode, right?  Does anyone know if that 
> functionality is on the horizon? Of course there is a finite amount of 
> time in a day for the developers to work on ruby, so I have no problem 
> being patient.  I just think ruby may get more business backing if it 
> can hide it's source code (for those who write closed-source software) 
> and would also keep people from making a "quick change" to production 
> code (ie introduce breakage to production code).
> 
> I would guess if it is already converting to bytecode internally than it 
> is getting some runtime performance benefits from it, and that's where I 
> personally would rather see the biggest speed improvements anyway.
> 
> James

I dunno about Python, but Java bytecode can be easily decompiled.

Joe.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.