Your dedicatory skills really suffers BC.
my what?
1,330 Java experts say it is not an interpreted language.
39,400 Other authorities say is is in deed and interpretive language.
*censored*? you can't just plug search queries into google and use those results as some sort of evidence. Nor can you claim that the hits are text being posted by "java experts" so you can stop making stuff up now.
Java itself isn't an "interpreted" language, the bytecode is. That may sound like "no difference" but there is a difference. Python/Perl/VBScript/Javascript have to be read, parsed, interpreted and executed On-the-fly; java is compiled to bytecode, and that bytecode is compiled to native machine code as the program runs. is there an interpretation step? Of course there is. But my point is that the way java is run using a Virtual Machine is completely and utterly different from a standard script language and is not something that you create for a portable script language. To run java code, it needs to be compiled. After that point- it's no longer java code- it's bytecode. Therefore java is a compiled language. Perhaps not in the spirit of the definition but that's the way the cards stacked.
To carry this further, some say Forth is an inoperative language, yet others argue that it is not even a language, just a way for invoking low-level code. Some real-time industrial applications are structures like any as interpretive language, yet they are very low-level primitive systems just a cut above machine code.
What are you talking about? Where the *censored* did Forth come from here?
And yes, virtual machine, at the core concept, are interpretative systems.
But they are still fundamentally different from Perl, Python, VBScript, etc. And regardless is NOT WHAT THE OP HAS. They aren't asking "how do I implement a Interpreted language". their question wasn't, "hey, I already have a language interpreter I wrote, can somebody make a nonsense post about java and virtual machines that does nothing to answer my actual question regarding the creation of an Executable package for a script file?"
If he wants to incorporate his interpreter and his run-time library in on bundle, yes he can do it.
Well thank goodness you are here to tell us all what we already know.
If he wants to optimize, it can be made to take very little space and can be a self-extracting file.
What are you even talking about now. I truly do not know. He never said he wanted to optimize. How a "self-extracting file" would help is beyond me. I honest have no clue what you are rambling about.
And he does not have to use .NET or any of that kind of trash.
.NET is not trash. You ought to back up your statements with some sort of evidence. Ideally not "evidence" regarding the number of hits you get between ".NET is trash" and ".NET is not trash". Remember to back it up with statements about .NET (the class library) and not the CLR (the runtime); I assume you of course are well aware of the difference, being that you are able to make such blanket statements about the technologies as a whole.
points to pay close attention to:
Why is it trash? Again: Specifics. none of this "well it does <insert vague statement> or it doesn't allow me to <insert generalized, handwavey and probably wrong statement>" either.
How would using .NET make this "task" easier? I really don't see how it would. Messing about with embedded resx files would be a *censored* of a lot more difficult than working with the Resource API functions. The only resource a .NET application would normally have are things like icon and version; and possibly typelib if it is a COM wrapper, but I haven't used COM wrappers. needless to say I'm sure you regard COM as trash as well. *censored* anything you don't understand in the slightest must be trash.
He can use an Natural, Organic, pesticide-free, Green, low salt no fat c/C++ compiler from some one other that MS. Did I hear Intel?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_C%2B%2B_Compiler
This has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING IN THIS THREAD. But I'll address it.
What is different between Intel's Compiler and Microsoft's compiler?
Specifics please. Pay particular attention to those elements that would make it more natural, Organic, pesticide free, Green, and no fat. Or, perhaps to be precise, why they shouldn't use the MS compiler in favour of it. And also, why the Microsoft C/C++ compiler even enters into this thread since they didn't state what language they used. Why Intel, anyway? Most Anti-Microsoft peeps prefer to use gcc or g++ for C++ (and to be fair it is a fine compiler).
It won't produce obj files and it uses a proprietary resource file format (read below).
Actually, all windows executables will have a standard resource- you can use the Resource API to add a new entry.
however, the difference with PowerBASIC in this case would be that you need to read that Resource using the API as well. (rather than using the built in "resource handling" that it provides. LoadString() might be sufficient for attempting to read the appropriate resource. from the code; adding the resource ought to still be a appropriate set of Resource management functions to update the resource.
Are you talking about UPX? If so, can you recommend a exe compressor/encryptor that isn't detected by AV.
None that I know of. FWIW I personally find exe compression/encryption utterly pointless and only goes to show ones hubris about their own projects. And this is with PowerBASIC, which if I understand correctly compiles to a Machine code EXE, right? isn't that enough "protection" from... whatever you are encrypting the program for? After all, only you have the original source, anybody else would just have the dissassembly.
