Distribute Parse Trees, Not Bytecode

Bill Frantz frantz@netcom.com
Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:10:08 -0700

At 10:19 PM -0700 6/22/99, Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>What we need is a format which avoids the entire compilation
>expense, represents the program compactly, yet still provides the
>ability to *present* the code as source.  And so the answer is to
>distribute signed parse trees (or, if you like, signed compressed
>parse trees).  This lets execution hosts skip a large chunk of the
>compilation cost, but still allows the runner of any program to
>see exactly the same source that the programmer wrote.  The
>machine running the program still has to emit code for it, but
>lots of implementations already do this work in a JIT anyway.

[+]Edward Felten, from the Princeton Safe Internet Programming team also
has suggested that the "object code" should be a parse tree.  That way, the
verifier does not need to reconstruct the program flow to perform the

Bill Frantz       | Macintosh: Didn't do every-| Periwinkle -- Consulting
(408)356-8506     | thing right, but did know  | 16345 Englewood Ave.
frantz@netcom.com | the century would end.     | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA