Joseph Lenton wrote:
> 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.

In JRuby's case, we do support dumping bytecode to disk as Java .class 
files. This would be roughly equivalent to Python's pyc files. And 
although you can decompile Java bytecode, you'd end up decompiling it to 
a mishmash of JRuby internal calls...it would be quite a bit harder to 
decompile all the way to Ruby.

- Charlie