| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Deliberate obfuscation: who needs it?Deliberate obfuscation: who needs it?Posted Apr 10, 2005 2:34 UTC (Sun) by kokopelli (guest, #11341)In reply to: Deliberate obfuscation: who needs it? by hppnq Parent article: Protect Your Source Code: Obfuscation 101 (O'ReillyNet)
I would make one subtle change - it should make sense to anyone already familiar with the environment even if it's totally incomprehensible to an experienced but newly hired developer. Mature projects tend to develop their own style, and high reliability projects (e.g., kernels and servers) can be nearly incomprehensible because of the heavy use of macros that ensure the state of the software isn't compromised.
(Log in to post comments)
Deliberate obfuscation: who needs it? Posted Apr 10, 2005 11:10 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Yes, good point. Of course, you can't simplify your code and your means to develop it at the *expense* of its quality, so a steep learning curve is to be expected in some cases, even if you're an excellent programmer.Note however, that complicated software has levels at which things are happening, which makes it possible to compartmentalize parts of it, in black boxes, for instance. Take git for instance. While I am struggling trying to grasp what is happening there, Linus has already moved to the next level. (Of course. ;-) He knows exactly how git could be part of a bigger system like a SCM tool. And the thing is, it works the other way around too, to some extent. These design issues are hard to extract from the actual code itself if you haven't thought about it for a bit before. ;-)
|
|
||||||||||||