28 Sep
2004
28 Sep
'04
12:12 p.m.
From: "David V. Corbin"
<dvcorbin(a)optonline.net>
Hi
It was possible to do in early BASIC's that allowed a machine
code subroutine calls. One input the code as data and then called
it. Both LISP and Forth have the ability to, by program, compile
code and then execute it. It is done more often in LISP.
This is a different form of self modifying.
Dwight
>> >>>
>> Can you create self modifying code in any high level
>> language, the kind of code where the application program
>> actually changes it's own instructions?
>>
>> I know in C it is possible to pass an address of a function
>> to a function, that's not really what I mean.
>>
Actually this is (sort of) becoming more common. One exciting feature of a
new platform by the software vendor who shall not be named, is that the
compiler is actually part of the runtime. This means that any program can
write source code to a string (or other structure) and compile and execute
it!!!!!!
28 Sep
28 Sep
1:07 p.m.
As many of you have pointed out there have been tools for generating
programs from within programs for a long time. There have also been many
programming environments which did not need a complete compiler.
To the best of my knowledge, the Microsoft .NET platform is the first
run-time environment [not development environment] in which a compiler,
linker and all of the associated capabilities are included. If you have a
windows machine [XP, 2K] and have applied the windowsupdates, then all of
these tools are already resident on your machines!
1:13 p.m.
>>>> "David" == David V Corbin
<dvcorbin(a)optonline.net> writes:
David> As many of you have pointed out there have been tools for
David> generating programs from within programs for a long
David> time. There have also been many programming environments which
David> did not need a complete compiler.
David> To the best of my knowledge, the Microsoft .NET platform is
David> the first run-time environment [not development environment]
David> in which a compiler, linker and all of the associated
David> capabilities are included. If you have a windows machine [XP,
David> 2K] and have applied the windowsupdates, then all of these
David> tools are already resident on your machines!
You mean -- as opposed to having to install a developer's package for
it?
If that's what you mean, then the answer is no, not by many decades.
Unix boxes pretty much uniformly come with all that. BASIC systems
always had it, as did LISP boxes, or FORTH systems. All that goes
back to the 1970s if not before. And of course, any large machine
(timesharing or batch) has always had all this stuff as a matter of
course. The closest you might come is that some of these systems
would offer some languages standard, and some as extra cost options.
Developer's kits are largely a PC invention, I would say.
paul
1:57 p.m.
Rumor has it that Paul Koning may have mentioned these words:
If that's what you mean, then the answer is no, not
by many decades.
Unix boxes pretty much uniformly come with all that. BASIC systems
always had it, as did LISP boxes, or FORTH systems. All that goes
back to the 1970s if not before. And of course, any large machine
(timesharing or batch) has always had all this stuff as a matter of
course. The closest you might come is that some of these systems
would offer some languages standard, and some as extra cost options.
Developer's kits are largely a PC invention, I would say.
I wouldn't -- if you wanted to develop in a program that didn't already
come with the machine. There were developer kits for COBOL, Pascal, etc.
for OS-9 on the CoCos (heck, Basic09 didn't even come with it initially
($99 option) - not until OS-9 Level II for the CoCo3 was it standard)...
However, I'd say that most early computers came with one built-in language
standard so you could actually *do* something with the computer... nowadays
that's no longer true.[1]
Heck, even IBM made sure that some form of BASIC or APL was included with
their early OSs... Did OS/2 come with a BASIC? I think they're a Micro$oft
conspiracy... You by an OS, then you have to buy something else so you can
actually *do* something with the OS...
Laterz,
Roger "Merch" Merchberger
[1] and it sucks, too! Like it would've been hard to include a basic BASIC
on the palm. Instead, it does nothing but keep notes & numbers...
--
Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- sysadmin, Iceberg Computers
zmerch(a)30below.com
What do you do when Life gives you lemons,
and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????
29 Sep
29 Sep
4:09 a.m.
At 05:57 PM 9/28/2004, Roger Merchberger wrote:
However, I'd say that most early computers came
with one built-in language standard so you could actually *do* something with the
computer... nowadays that's no longer true.[1]
[1] and it sucks, too! Like it would've been hard to include a basic BASIC on the
palm. Instead, it does nothing but keep notes & numbers...
There are freeware and cheapware BASICs for the Palm, of course.
This is how I've lured my 9-year-old into programming on an old IIIc.
- John
28 Sep
28 Sep
1:22 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 18:07 -0400, David V. Corbin wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the Microsoft .NET
platform is the first
run-time environment [not development environment] in which a compiler,
linker and all of the associated capabilities are included. If you have a
windows machine [XP, 2K] and have applied the windowsupdates, then all of
these tools are already resident on your machines!
Hmm, interesting point. PHP's the example which immediately springs to
mind - I believe it has the equivalent of eval to execute dynamically
generated code (and these days is available in standalone flavours). Not
sure if it beat .net to availability though.
Doesn't Perl have something along these lines? I'd be surprised if not.
Unix shell scripts qualify too I suppose.
And Java comes close, but with the added security of the compiler being
seperate.
(And with the exception of Unix shell scripts, they'll all work on any
modern platform, not just one particular line)
cheers,
Jules
3:01 p.m.
You can download the activeperl package and get it all for free, plus, it's
cross-platform. http://activestate.com/ActivePerl or maybe just
http://activestate.com/
At 10:22 PM 9/28/2004 +0000, you wrote:
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 18:07 -0400, David V. Corbin
wrote:
[Alcohol] Without question, the greatest invention in the history of
mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the wheel was also a fine
invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza.
--Dave Barry
--... ...-- -.. . -. ----. --.- --.- -...
tpeters(a)nospam.mixcom.com (remove "nospam") N9QQB (amateur radio)
"HEY YOU" (loud shouting) WEB ADDRESS http//www.mixweb.com/tpeters
43? 7' 17.2" N by 88? 6' 28.9" W, Elevation 815', Grid Square
EN53wc
WAN/LAN/Telcom Analyst, Tech Writer, MCP, Cisco Certified CCNA
To the best of my knowledge, the Microsoft .NET
platform is the first
run-time environment [not development environment] in which a compiler,
linker and all of the associated capabilities are included. If you have a
windows machine [XP, 2K] and have applied the windowsupdates, then all of
these tools are already resident on your machines!
Hmm, interesting point. PHP's the example which immediately springs to
mind - I believe it has the equivalent of eval to execute dynamically
generated code (and these days is available in standalone flavours). Not
sure if it beat .net to availability though.
Doesn't Perl have something along these lines? I'd be surprised if not.
Unix shell scripts qualify too I suppose.
And Java comes close, but with the added security of the compiler being
seperate.
(And with the exception of Unix shell scripts, they'll all work on any
modern platform, not just one particular line)
cheers,
Jules
4:53 p.m.
New subject: Code Generation
>>
>> Doesn't Perl have something along these lines? I'd be
>> surprised if not.
>>
I am taling about features build into the run-time of the language, not
access to external tools [such as what ships with Unix and many other
environments].
The Perl eval() is relatively close in functionallity to what I am referring
to [In the .NET platform] as are capabilities in Forth and Lisp.
The difference is that these languagages are to some degree interpreted,
they do not normally compile down to native executable code. However these
types of constructs do perform roughly equivilant functions.
With the dynamic assembly you can go from source code to native instruction
and even persist [save] the results between runs in many different ways.
Also the code generator is capable of supporting different .Net languages.
This means that a C# program can write and excute Cobol code, or a Visual
Basic program could write Fortran code and execute it.
I have a large number of complaints and gripes against Microsoft, but after
working in this environment for the past 3 years [I have been in the
computer field nearly 30 years] I do have to say it is the most
comprehensive programming environment I have ever worked in. Given that it
is only at version 1.1 [with version 2.0 currently in Beta (and I am in the
Beta program)], it is sure to have a large impact on professional software
development.
I know there are a few people on this list who still make an active living
working with the older environments, and more power to them! If I could find
a good paying position developing RSX-11M based software [Or even better
PAL-8], I would jump on it in a minute. The general truth is that a
Microsoft environment is the most convient way to make a living developing
software.
29 Sep
29 Sep
1:36 a.m.
New subject: Code Generation
On Tue, 2004-09-28 at 21:53 -0400, David V. Corbin wrote:
Sorry, I meant built into the language too, not a bolt-on :-)
>>
>> Doesn't Perl have something along these lines? I'd be
>> surprised if not.
>>
I am taling about features build into the run-time of the language, not
access to external tools [such as what ships with Unix and many other
environments]. The difference is that these languagages are to some
degree interpreted,
they do not normally compile down to native executable code. However these
types of constructs do perform roughly equivilant functions.
Hazy memory, but I thought .net was typically C# in a distributed
environment - in other words, Microsoft's rip-off of Java and JINI with
the added "benefit" of vendor lock-in :-)
I thought C# was *usually* interpreted, just with the option of
compilation if needs be (just as Java bytecode can be compiled to native
code if desired). Fair call on the compiler included with the OS though.
Aside: it's funny how typical developers don't seem to care about
application footprint or efficiency these days, yet they often throw
their arms up in protest when it comes to mention of interpreted code
over native (I don't mean you David, just a general observation)
With the dynamic assembly you can go from source code
to native instruction
and even persist [save] the results between runs in many different ways.
I've certainly seen that for other langauges - not as you say included
as part of the OS though.
Also the code generator is capable of supporting
different .Net languages.
This means that a C# program can write and excute Cobol code, or a Visual
Basic program could write Fortran code and execute it.
Now that is interesting. A developer's nightmare, but interesting :-)
The general truth is that a
Microsoft environment is the most convient way to make a living developing
software.
I hope that MS don't go the same route as Sun did with Java and try to
enforce the way that developers work. Keeping it (relatively) simple
(and therefore flexible) is the key - as soon as a vendor tries to
impose a style of working upon the language it starts going downhill, as
there are always going to be scenarios where there are exceptions to the
way they see things.
seeya,
Jules
4:21 a.m.
New subject: Code Generation
At 05:36 AM 9/29/2004, Jules Richardson wrote:
Aside: it's funny how typical developers don't
seem to care about
application footprint or efficiency these days, yet they often throw
their arms up in protest when it comes to mention of interpreted code
over native (I don't mean you David, just a general observation)
Exploit and virus writers are very sensitive to code size! :-)
You can't inject just anything into some of these holes, you
need tiny routines that can jumpstart larger routines, again
and again, sometimes with very odd constraints on the values
of the bytes of the code and data!
- John
9:56 a.m.
On Tuesday 28 September 2004 17:22, Jules Richardson wrote:
Hmm, interesting point. PHP's the example which immediately springs to
mind - I believe it has the equivalent of eval to execute dynamically
generated code (and these days is available in standalone flavours). Not
sure if it beat .net to availability though.
Doesn't Perl have something along these lines? I'd be surprised if not.
Yes, it does. So does tcl. And tcl has been around for quite some
time...since the early 80s, as I recall.
Unix shell scripts qualify too I suppose.
And Java comes close, but with the added security of the compiler being
seperate.
(And with the exception of Unix shell scripts, they'll all work on any
modern platform, not just one particular line)
cheers,
Jules
--
- Dan Wright
(dtwright(a)uiuc.edu)
(http://www.uiuc.edu/~dtwright)
"we are content if we can describe a multitude of other things in terms of...
fundamental incomprehensibilities. science is an activity that takes place on
the shore of an infinite sea of mystery."
chet raymo, "doctor seuss and doctor einstein"
10:12 a.m.
Modern graphics drivers have a complete compiler, linker and
pre-processor built-in (GLSL). Also lots of D3D games link with D3DX
which has the complete HLSL language system.
GLSL ships with every Windows graphics driver for NVIDIA, ATI and 3D
Labs and soon will ship with most Linux, Freebsd systems (DRI/MESAGL)
and Apple (actually may be shipping already) systems.
Of course people aren't used to the idea that there graphics chips have
significantly more programmable floating point power than there CPU. So
only games programmers get to use all that wasted power (its in the
order of 50-100 GFLOPS currently, should pass a TFLOP in 5 years).
David V. Corbin wrote:
As many of you have pointed out there have been tools for generating
programs from within programs for a long time. There have also been many
programming environments which did not need a complete compiler.
To the best of my knowledge, the Microsoft .NET platform is the first
run-time environment [not development environment] in which a compiler,
linker and all of the associated capabilities are included. If you have a
windows machine [XP, 2K] and have applied the windowsupdates, then all of
these tools are already resident on your machines!
10:23 a.m.
New subject: GLSL, was: Re: Harvard vs. vonNeuman
Deano Calver wrote:
Of course people aren't used to the idea that
there graphics chips have
significantly more programmable floating point power than there CPU. So
only games programmers get to use all that wasted power (its in the
order of 50-100 GFLOPS currently, should pass a TFLOP in 5 years).
Not only game programmers. Check :
http://www.gpgpu.org/
for far more applications ...
28 Sep
28 Sep
1:09 p.m.
>>>> "Dwight" == Dwight K Elvey
<dwight.elvey(a)amd.com> writes:
> From: "David V. Corbin"
<dvcorbin(a)optonline.net>
>>>> >>> Can you create self modifying code in any high level
>>>> language, the kind of code where the application program
>>>> actually changes it's own instructions?
>>>>
>>>> I know in C it is possible to pass an address of a function to
>>>> a function, that's not really what I mean.
>>>>
> Actually this is (sort of) becoming more common. One exciting
> feature of a new platform by the software vendor who shall not be
> named, is that the compiler is actually part of the runtime. This
> means that any program can write source code to a string (or other
> structure) and compile and execute it!!!!!!
>
Dwight> Hi It was possible to do in early BASIC's that allowed a
Dwight> machine code subroutine calls. One input the code as data and
Dwight> then called it. Both LISP and Forth have the ability to, by
Dwight> program, compile code and then execute it. It is done more
Dwight> often in LISP.
Good point about Forth.
I wouldn't say LISP does it more -- whenever you feed code to a Forth
system, it's doing this, so it does it all the time every time...
paul
7232
days inactive
7233
days old
13 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
deano＠rattie.demon.co.uk -
dtwright＠uiuc.edu -
dvcorbin＠optonline.net -
dwight.elvey＠amd.com -
emu＠ecubics.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
pkoning＠equallogic.com -
tpeters＠mixcom.com -
zmerch＠30below.com