[Ffmpeg-devel] Re: FFMPEG code a mess
Mon Sep 19 00:55:34 CEST 2005
"Mike Melanson" <mike at multimedia.cx> writes:
>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
>> > G?bor Farkas <gabor at nekomancer.net> writes:
>> >>if it's your opinion, why do you think that java's such a bad choice
>> >>for an OOP language?
> Personally, I advocate that proprietary companies write all of their
> most secret protocols and algorithms in Java. Java is ridiculously easy
> to reverse engineer, even if the code is obfuscated:
It sure is. I once came across an attempt at copy protection scheme
with license keys done in Java. I reverse engineered it by accident
while looking for something else.
>> > - Everything has to be an object.
>> int/char/boolean and stuff like that does not have to be an object.
But you can't have pointers to the non-object versions.
> But you can use the objectified versions of these with Integer, Boolean,
>> > - No unsigned types.
>> why do you need them? what would you like to do with them?
> How about if you are writing a CPU simulator where you want to simulate
> 16-bit registers? I know from whence I speak. Having that sign bit is
> most inconvenient as you can not cleanly stuff an unsigned 16-bit value
> into the 16-bit (15 bits + sign) data type and must promote it to the
> next size up.
This becomes especially annoying when you need 32 bits unsigned
space. Going up to 64 bits slows things down on 32-bit hardware.
mru at inprovide.com
More information about the ffmpeg-devel