"compile" vs. "tokenize" (was Re: Password Problem)

[Fairlight]

With neither thought nor caution, Kenneth Brody blurted:
> 
> Well, to be "buzzword compliant", I would say that "filePro compiles to
> a bytecode for the filePro Virtual Machine".
> 
> Basically, it gets compiled to machine code.  It's just that the machine
> that it compiles for is not the physical machine that you're running.

I'd say you're splitting hairs, Ken.  :)

Let me put it this way--if that's your criterion, then perl is to be
categorised as a compiled language without perlcc, perl2exe, PAR/pp, or any
other of the self-contained-executable generating software available.

And in the real world, that just isn't how it's viewed.

I mean, it's your prerogative to view it that way.  I can even understand
why you're saying it.  I'd just say that I have a quibble with the
technicalities under which you invoke the definition of 'compiled'.

No offense, but I'll agree to disagree on this one.

And as a sidenote--it doesn't really matter; both example platforms do
their respective jobs, and it's pretty irrelevant how it's viewed so long
as it works.  At least in a technical sense.  In a -conceptual- sense, it
matters, as compiled languages are preferable to interpreted (even
bytecode-interpreted), and licensing and distribution of applications is a
lot simpler in the compiled sense.  The logistical viewpoint where someone
looks at a product and says, "Okay, great...looks sharp, we'll take it,"
but then is told, "Well, there's just one tiny thing...you also need to buy
this to actually run it," has been a bit of a thorn in the side for some.
It's frankly harder to sell something like that than something
self-contained--especially when what it depends on isn't something you can
just pick up off the shelf or readily obtain support for from just about
anywhere (Oracle, MSSQL, (God save me) even Jet/Access).

I'm not -personally- complaining.  I just know it's made it harder over the
years in some situations.  People want one unified "something".  Doesn't
matter what.  They start seeing more and more necesssary pieces and they
start wanting to walk, as it gets more complex, and people that make the
decisions on buy/don't-buy don't tend to like 'complex'.

It also depends how the developer handles it.  If they transparently bundle
it so that the customer is barely even (or NOT even) aware they're running
fP, then it's easier to sell.  The problem then is that if their developer
goes away or there's a falling out, the customer in question doesn't even
know what they're dealing with because it was never presented up-front.

Overall, I think the current runtime model has made it harder on
developers, which in turn makes it harder on fP-Tech.  But that's just my
opinion.  YMMV.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html