Talk:MD5/Implementation: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 03:27, 29 September 2010

After reviewing the original MD5 page and realizing it was all over the map, it seemed reasonable to want to show off native capabilities of languages to meet a well specified and demanding problem. Most of the solutions on the original MD5 page will not satisfy this task description.

Autohotkey has a largely native implementation that uses a couple of DLL calls. However, the core of the algorithm is implemented as native code and meets the intent here.
C, Liberty Basic, Matlab (if fixed), Modula3 all seem to satisfy the coding part of the task
Common Lisp may qualify if more is shown, as may Forth
The Python examples use hashlib which uses an external call. However, there is Python 2 code http://www.equi4.com/md5/ that is native and a direct translation of RFC 1321 with the RSA copyrights (I think a derivative work of an RFC is fair game but haven't actually checked it out).

Basically, I think this is ready but wanted input.

I considered adding a 'performance' measure but was wondering how to compare apples to apples with so many different processors around.

--Dgamey 03:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 * Common Lisp may qualify if more is shown, as may Forth
 * The Python examples use hashlib which uses an external call.  However, there is Python 2 code http://www.equi4.com/md5/ that is native and a direct translation of RFC 1321 with the RSA copyrights (I think a derivative work of an RFC is fair game but haven't actually checked it out).
+Basically, I think this is ready but wanted input.
+I considered adding a 'performance' measure but was wondering how to compare apples to apples with so many different processors around.
 --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 03:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)