<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel><title><![CDATA[ActionScript.org Flash, Flex and ActionScript Resources - Comments for article: Anatomy of a SWF File]]></title><link>http://www.actionscript.org/resources</link><description /><language>en-us</language><copyright><![CDATA[http://www.actionscript.org/resources]]></copyright><generator>N/A</generator><webMaster>general.redirect@gmail.com</webMaster><lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:12:19 CST</lastBuildDate><ttl>20</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Comment #1]]></title><link>http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment11326</link><description><![CDATA[I would recommend anyone to read this. It's well written and doesn't linger too long on each subject. Very interesting.<br/><br/>
(Comment posted by M at 6:17 am, Sat 10th May 2008)]]></description><author>no@spam.com (M)</author><pubDate><![CDATA[Sat, 10 May 2008 06:17:04 CDT]]></pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment11326</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comment #2]]></title><link>http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment12103</link><description><![CDATA[Excellent article. Consider clarifying these two items: (1) The two paragraphs that discuss the difference between script and compiled code are confusing -- the reader is left with the impression that both create "machine code". (2) The statement that SWF files are "not inherently secure" should be clarified. What is meant is that the information in a SWF is not effectively hidden, but "not secure" can mean many other things -- usually, that something can harm the files on your computer.<br/><br/>
(Comment posted by cvt at 1:00 am, Sun 12th Oct 2008)]]></description><author>no@spam.com (cvt)</author><pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 12 Oct 2008 01:00:51 CDT]]></pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment12103</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comment #3]]></title><link>http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment12362</link><description><![CDATA[Great article.  It did answer very many questions that I've had about compilers and script programming.  Very well done.<br/><br/>
(Comment posted by Havok Jinx at 1:40 pm, Fri 5th Dec 2008)]]></description><author>no@spam.com (Havok Jinx)</author><pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:40:52 CST]]></pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment12362</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comment #4]]></title><link>http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment12364</link><description><![CDATA[cvt, the paragraphs that describe the differences between bytecode and machine code are fairly clear. A script language like "ActionScript doesn't stay as source code when it's put into the SWF. However, the bytecode instructions aren't understood by the computer." In contrast, a compiled language "is converted to machine code only once, and then that machine code is executed directly every time a program runs." In other words, script languages must be translated to machine code in real-time (while the program is running), and compiled languages are already machine code (no translation).

I'm not sure if I agree with your definition of secure. Secure has always meant (to me) that it is built to be tamper-proof and is difficult to alter. Something that doesn't harm your computer's files, on the other hand, would probably be defined as innocuous or safe. The difference is that something that is secure protects from outside intrusion or tampering whereas something safe does not tamper with its outside environment. It's the direction of the attack that differentiates the two terms. However, I'm not a total stickler for terms so "secure" is fine by me as long as it's understood correctly.<br/><br/>
(Comment posted by Patrick Bay at 3:09 pm, Fri 5th Dec 2008)]]></description><author>no@spam.com (Patrick Bay)</author><pubDate><![CDATA[Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:09:03 CST]]></pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment12364</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[Comment #5]]></title><link>http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment13673</link><description><![CDATA[Very knowledgeable, I learned quite a bit from this and I will look for more of the author's articles.<br/><br/>
(Comment posted by Kurious at 3:10 pm, Tue 10th Nov 2009)]]></description><author>no@spam.com (Kurious)</author><pubDate><![CDATA[Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:10:45 CST]]></pubDate><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.actionscript.org/resources/articles/728/1/Anatomy-of-a-SWF-File/Page1.html#Comment13673</guid></item></channel></rss>