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

[Kenneth Brody]

Fairlight wrote:
[...]
> 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.

Is that any different from "you also need to buy Unix/Linux/Windows/KenOS
to actually run it"?  (Aside from the fact that they probably already have
Unix/Linux/Windows/KenOS installed.)

> 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).

Very few things are really "self-contained".  They just depend on
something that is likely to already be there, like the O/S.

[...]

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |                             |
| kenbrody at spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+