When is simba going to support binary compilation?

[tom99]

Hello, its surprising simba still dont support binary compilation after so long.
and im pretty sure wizzup did promise this in the beginning. is this something witch is yet to come or is it impossible to integrate ?

[Wizzup?]

It's not impossible. We've done this right in the beginning, before Simba ever went public. You could compile scripts to .exe's. The reason we dropped it back then was to have backwards compatibility and because interpreting is a lot user friendlier.

That said, the main reason we don't have this is security and maintainability.

The benefits of binaries are:


Can run standalone.
Possibly more simple to use.


Downsides:


Not easy to validate code for safety.
Not dynamic. This is important. Now, if there is a SRL update, you'll simply let Simba update your SRL. You click run and you're using the latest SRL. This isn't the case with your executable. You'll have to rebuild it. Note that obviously the interpreter rebuilds SRL too, but it does this every time you run the script. IOW, every script update, every SRL update, you'll have to rebuild the .exe.
External dependencies could be annoying.
Architecture dependent. (Not really an issue)


Note that I currently assumed that you meant just having a button ``Convert script to exe''. This also means you'll be using Simba's interpreter in the .exe.

You can do this in some way, Sythe did it once with a very nasty hack. (He basically just included the scar binary in his .exe)

Perhaps we can create a tool that will create a .exe, use the right simba libraries and add the interpreter to it.

There's another possibility, though... If you would use a proper compiler like FPC, you'd have these advantages:


Speed
Access to a lot of extra units and libraries.


But this would mean you can't use SRL in it's current form. But you can use Simba!

Simba due to it's open sourceness already gives you the ability to directly use all the features / units we have built in your own executables. I've already created some small executable tools that use exactly this. So essentially, you can already create binaries with Simba. If I recall correctly SPS uses the Simba units as well, for example. But this area could use a lot more documentation and is quite useless for runescape purposes since you can't use SRL with it.

[tom99]

Hi wizzup , well i can see the only consern is regarding the security.

i think we shoud think possiblities instead of be so picky about the security.
but if somone did release a rs tool or similiar it could contain a keylogger designed to steal your account.

But i know for a fact that scar woud not be any more effective than a good ftp keylogger made in c++ witch is fud aswell.

and why is it hard to make native binary compilation work with the srl functions?
after all srl is only nesesary to solve randoms in rs (or atleast it used to ;) )


and maby try to implement it. and if troubles apear then make it ilegale to post rs related native code/compiled exe's. then allow it for other things and make the downloader responsible for any damage done of such files not the creator.
but ofcourse make some sort of punishment if somone get caught in publishing a malicious exe file.

keep in mind this last sentence ^ is just a tought of me. i believe this is a good idea, and absolute worth a try ;)

[Floor66]

People will get them to other forums and use them with malicious intent anyway.

[tom99]

People will get them to other forums and use them with malicious intent anyway.
Good point people get hacked every week in rs and it will always be like that.

Also rsbot can use precompiled scripts witch is almost the same thing, in that means that your not able to see the script only class files.

[Echo_]

Good point people get hacked every week in rs and it will always be like that.

Also rsbot can use precompiled scripts witch is almost the same thing, in that means that your not able to see the script only class files.

You can easily view those with a java decompiler, .exe is a little more challenging to take apart.

[tom99]

Yes thats correct. but i seriously doubt people woud spend time making some sort of maleware in simba, so it dosent matter right?
with my comp
scar use 1 min to count to 100.000
while java is using 14 sec to count to 100.000.000 that make it pretty self explained right?

[tom99]

-bump- i woud like to see more opinions on this.

[Train]

Yes thats correct. but i seriously doubt people woud spend time making some sort of maleware in simba, so it dosent matter right?
with my comp
scar use 1 min to count to 100.000
while java is using 14 sec to count to 100.000.000 that make it pretty self explained right?

SCAR counts to 100,000 in 62 milliseconds for me, and to 100,000,000 in about 1.2 seconds. I don't see your point?

[tom99]

the point is people woud not waist their time away to create malewares with scar because it so slow and got lack of functions to make it suitable for that. and if the purpose is to hack an account there is ALOT bether alternatives than pascal.

[Train]

the point is people woud not waist their time away to create malewares with scar because it so slow and got lack of functions to make it suitable for that. and if the purpose is to hack an account there is ALOT bether alternatives than pascal.

I could easily throw a whole keylogger in a 4 line script [in simba], 3 lines in SCAR. I still don't see your point.

[Wizzup?]

You guys are going a bit off topic. Of course you can write malware in programs that interpret code.

[tom99]

wizzup why cant you just add it already ? :p

[TomTuff]

wizzup why cant you just add it already ? :p

I don't really understand what huge advantage you would gain by having executable versions of your scripts :redface:

[Bonfield]

Why do you want this supported so much, what's the advantage?

[Wizzup?]

wizzup why cant you just add it already ? :p

No, I don't have to the time to do so currently. It's not that trivial and if I have free time I have things for Simba to work on that are more important.

[tom99]

Allright :(

[Bonfield]

That doesnt explain why you want to run scripts from an exe, or any other positives for adding binary support

[tom99]

there is many, forexample deployment or runtime speed and simplified user interface.

[Sex]

Yes thats correct. but i seriously doubt people woud spend time making some sort of maleware in simba, so it dosent matter right?
with my comp
scar use 1 min to count to 100.000
while java is using 14 sec to count to 100.000.000 that make it pretty self explained right?
Simba counts to 100k in like 68ms for me bruh.

[Bonfield]

How much quicker do you want runtime speed? I don't think speed is an issue here and I personally see how a simplified user interface is need

I think the cons outweigh the pros here

[Tickyy]

i actually would love to see that coming wizzup?, .exe ftw :p!

[grats]

Would be dangerous for people sharing scripts.. but I'd like to run from them.

It would be cool to have scripts like we have now and then people can create their own .exe's from them.. so when srl / reflection updates they can open up the script and compile it to an exe in a few seconds / minutes and then bam have a new exe for the script

[x[Warrior]x3500]

why not just make it a rule that if people were to release scripts on these forums, to make it a .simba, and not an .exe. this would completely stop the security/keylogger issues.

i would like the exe simply because it is easier to transport. even though simba is small, it is annoying to have to install it on a new computer that i will probably never use simba on again, just to run a script. having an exe would make it way easier to run scripts on computers (like i go to computer labs and such).

^ sry if that didnt make much sense, im in a hurry.

[Sex]

x3500;786191']why not just make it a rule that if people were to release scripts on these forums, to make it a .simba, and not an .exe. this would completely stop the security/keylogger issues.

i would like the exe simply because it is easier to transport. even though simba is small, it is annoying to have to install it on a new computer that i will probably never use simba on again, just to run a script. having an exe would make it way easier to run scripts on computers (like i go to computer labs and such).

^ sry if that didnt make much sense, im in a hurry.
Two words, portable Simba ;).

[cycrosism]

I think it would be cool, I could compile my scripts to .exe and run them on other computers in my house without having to install anything (if that is the case)

[Wizzup?]

x3500;786191']why not just make it a rule that if people were to release scripts on these forums, to make it a .simba, and not an .exe. this would completely stop the security/keylogger issues.

i would like the exe simply because it is easier to transport. even though simba is small, it is annoying to have to install it on a new computer that i will probably never use simba on again, just to run a script. having an exe would make it way easier to run scripts on computers (like i go to computer labs and such).

^ sry if that didnt make much sense, im in a hurry.

Sure, but you can't really stop the spreading of .exe's either. On other forums, etc. We still partially bear the responsibility.

[Narcle]

We still partially bear the responsibility.

Soon as one "bad" exe goes out it has our signature on it and would just be bad rep. Basically stopping future SRL'ers.

With convenience comes compromise.

[Feroc1ty]

Soon as one "bad" exe goes out it has our signature on it and would just be bad rep. Basically stopping future SRL'ers.

With convenience comes compromise.

So don't tag SRL's name on .exe's?

Honestly why would you ever run a .exe unless you know for a fact that it's safe, I would personally download the script, look over it, and than compile it to an exe myself, and would never download another persons .exe.

[Floor66]

So don't tag SRL's name on .exe's?

Honestly why would you ever run a .exe unless you know for a fact that it's safe, I would personally download the script, look over it, and than compile it to an exe myself, and would never download another persons .exe.

While that's very wise of you to do, there will be many, many l33ch3rs who might not even be capable of checking a script for malicious content and they will fall prey to it.

[Brandon]

Two words, portable Simba ;).

I would have already made a tutorial on simba to .exe as I already wrote a program that grabs scripts and compiles the resources + simba and embed it as a manifest.. but it doesnt work because no matter what console u launch simba from, it hijacks it aka.. the conhost process in task manager..

If its a console program, simba will hijack it as its own and the program will never execute.. If its not a console program and u launch it using another program, simba's console will automatically show and will not be hidden... it will give an error such as "you cannot hide this console because it was not created by simba"

Thats the only problem stopping me from doing this :S OR wizzup can just do it IF he has TIME.. or at least make it not jack other consoles..

example: if u open simba and run a script with cmd, it will hijack cmd as its own personal console..