问题
- I am recently thinking about writing self-modifying programs, I think it may be powerful and fun. So I am currently looking for a language that allows modifying a program's own code easily.
- I read about C# (as a way around) and the ability to compile and execute code in runtime, but that is too hurting.
- I am also thinking about assembly. It is easier there to change running code but it is not very powerful (very raw).
Can you suggest a powerful language or feature that supports modifying code in runtime?
Example
That what I mean by modifying code in runtime:
Start:
a=10,b=20,c=0;
label1: c=a+b;
....
label1= c=a*b;
goto label1;
and may be building a list of instructions:
code1.add(c=a+b);
code1.add(c=c*(c-1));
code1. execute();
回答1:
Malbolge would be a good place to start. Every instruction is self-modifying, and it's a lot of fun(*) to play with.
(*) Disclaimer: May not actually be fun.
回答2:
I highly recommend Lisp. Lisp data can be read and exec'd as code. Lisp code can be written out as data.
It is considered one of the canonical self-modifiable languages.
Example list(data):
'(+ 1 2 3)
or, calling the data as code
(eval '(+ 1 2 3))
runs the + function.
You can also go in and edit the members of the lists on the fly.
edit:
I wrote a program to dynamically generate a program and evaluate it on the fly, then report to me how it did compared to a baseline(div by 0 was the usual report, ha).
回答3:
Every answer so far is about reflection/runtime compilation, but in the comments you mentioned you're interested in actual self-modifying code - code that modifies itself in-memory.
There is no way to do this in C#, Java, or even (portably) in C - that is, you cannot modify the loaded in-memory binary using these languages.
In general, the only way to do this is with assembly, and it's highly processor-dependent. In fact, it's highly operating-system dependent as well: to protect against polymorphic viruses, most modern operating systems (including Windows XP+, Linux, and BSD) enforce W^X, meaning you have to go through some trouble to write polymorphic executables in those operating systems, for the ones that allow it at all.
It may be possible in some interpreted languages to have the program modify its own source-code while it's running. Perl, Python (see here), and every implementation of Javascript I know of do not allow this, though.
回答4:
Personally, I find it quite strange that you find assembly easier to handle than C#. I find it even stranger that you think that assembly isn't as powerful: you can't get any more powerful than raw machine language. Anyway, to each his/her own.
C# has great reflection services, but if you have an aversion to that.. If you're really comfortable with C or C++, you could always write a program that writes C/C++ and issues it to a compiler. This would only be viable if your solution doesn't require a quick self-rewriting turn-around time (on the order of tens of seconds or more).
Javascript and Python both support reflection as well. If you're thinking of learning a new, fun programming language that's powerful but not massively technically demanding, I'd suggest Python.
回答5:
May I suggest Python, a nice very high-level dynamic language which has rich introspection included (and by e.g. usage of compile, eval or exec permits a form of self-modifying code). A very simple example based upon your question:
def label1(a,b,c):
c=a+b
return c
a,b,c=10,20,0
print label1(a,b,c) # prints 30
newdef= \
"""
def label1(a,b,c):
c=a*b
return c
"""
exec(newdef,globals(),globals())
print label1(a,b,c) # prints 200
Note that in the code sample above c is only altered in the function scope.
回答6:
Common Lisp was designed with this sort of thing in mind. You could also try Smalltalk, where using reflection to modify running code is not unknown.
In both of these languages you are likely to be replacing an entire function or an entire method, not a single line of code. Smalltalk methods tend to be more fine-grained than Lisp functions, so that may be a good place to begin.
回答7:
Many languages allow you to eval code at runtime.
- Lisp
- Perl
- Python
- PHP
- Ruby
- Groovy (via GroovyShell)
回答8:
In high-level languages where you compile and execute code at run-time, it is not really self-modifying code, but dynamic class loading. Using inheritance principles, you can replace a class Factory and change application behavior at run-time.
Only in assembly language do you really have true self-modification, by writing directly to the code segment. But there is little practical usage for it. If you like a challenge, write a self-encrypting, maybe polymorphic virus. That would be fun.
回答9:
I wrote Python class Code that enables you to add and delete new lines of code to the object, print the code and excecute it. Class Code shown at the end.
Example: if the x == 1, the code changes its value to x = 2 and then deletes the whole block with the conditional that checked for that condition.
#Initialize Variables
x = 1
#Create Code
code = Code()
code + 'global x, code' #Adds a new Code instance code[0] with this line of code => internally code.subcode[0]
code + "if x == 1:" #Adds a new Code instance code[1] with this line of code => internally code.subcode[1]
code[1] + "x = 2" #Adds a new Code instance 0 under code[1] with this line of code => internally code.subcode[1].subcode[0]
code[1] + "del code[1]" #Adds a new Code instance 0 under code[1] with this line of code => internally code.subcode[1].subcode[1]
After the code is created you can print it:
#Prints
print "Initial Code:"
print code
print "x = " + str(x)
Output:
Initial Code:
global x, code
if x == 1:
x = 2
del code[1]
x = 1
Execute the cade by calling the object: code()
print "Code after execution:"
code() #Executes code
print code
print "x = " + str(x)
Output 2:
Code after execution:
global x, code
x = 2
As you can see, the code changed the variable x to the value 2 and deleted the whole if block. This might be useful to avoid checking for conditions once they are met. In real-life, this case-scenario could be handled by a coroutine system, but this self modifying code experiment is just for fun.
class Code:
def __init__(self,line = '',indent = -1):
if indent < -1:
raise NameError('Invalid {} indent'.format(indent))
self.strindent = ''
for i in xrange(indent):
self.strindent = ' ' + self.strindent
self.strsubindent = ' ' + self.strindent
self.line = line
self.subcode = []
self.indent = indent
def __add__(self,other):
if other.__class__ is str:
other_code = Code(other,self.indent+1)
self.subcode.append(other_code)
return self
elif other.__class__ is Code:
self.subcode.append(other)
return self
def __sub__(self,other):
if other.__class__ is str:
for code in self.subcode:
if code.line == other:
self.subcode.remove(code)
return self
elif other.__class__ is Code:
self.subcode.remove(other)
def __repr__(self):
rep = self.strindent + self.line + '\n'
for code in self.subcode: rep += code.__repr__()
return rep
def __call__(self):
print 'executing code'
exec(self.__repr__())
return self.__repr__()
def __getitem__(self,key):
if key.__class__ is str:
for code in self.subcode:
if code.line is key:
return code
elif key.__class__ is int:
return self.subcode[key]
def __delitem__(self,key):
if key.__class__ is str:
for i in range(len(self.subcode)):
code = self.subcode[i]
if code.line is key:
del self.subcode[i]
elif key.__class__ is int:
del self.subcode[key]
回答10:
I sometimes, although very rarely do self-modifying code in Ruby.
Sometimes you have a method where you don't really know whether the data you are using (e.g. some lazy cache) is properly initialized or not. So, you have to check at the beginning of your method whether the data is properly initialized and then maybe initialize it. But you really only have to do that initialization once, but you check for it every single time.
So, sometimes I write a method which does the initialization and then replaces itself with a version that doesn't include the initialization code.
class Cache
def [](key)
@backing_store ||= self.expensive_initialization
def [](key)
@backing_store[key]
end
@backing_store[key]
end
end
But honestly, I don't think that's worth it. In fact, I'm embarrassed to admit that I have never actually benchmarked to see whether that one conditional actually makes any difference. (On a modern Ruby implementation with an aggressively optimizing profile-feedback-driven JIT compiler probably not.)
Note that, depending on how you define "self-modifying code", this may or may not be what you want. You are replacing some part of the currently executing program, so …
EDIT: Now that I think about it, that optimization doesn't make much sense. The expensive initialization is only executed once anyway. The only thing that modification avoids, is the conditional. It would be better to take an example where the check itself is expensive, but I can't think of one.
However, I thought of a cool example of self-modifying code: the Maxine JVM. Maxine is a Research VM (it's technically not actually allowed to be called a "JVM" because its developers don't run the compatibility testsuites) written completely in Java. Now, there are plenty of JVMs written in itself, but Maxine is the only one I know of that also runs in itself. This is extremely powerful. For example, the JIT compiler can JIT compile itself to adapt it to the type of code that it is JIT compiling.
A very similar thing happens in the Klein VM which is a VM for the Self Programming Language.
In both cases, the VM can optimize and recompile itself at runtime.
回答11:
You can do this in Maple (the computer algebra language). Unlike those many answers above which use compiled languages which only allow you to create and link in new code at run-time, here you can honest-to-goodness modify the code of a currently-running program. (Ruby and Lisp, as indicated by other answerers, also allow you to do this; probably Smalltalk too).
Actually, it used to be standard in Maple that most library functions were small stubs which would load their 'real' self from disk on first call, and then self-modify themselves to the loaded version. This is no longer the case as the library loading has been virtualized.
As others have indicated: you need an interpreted language with strong reflection and reification facilities to achieve this.
I have written an automated normalizer/simplifier for Maple code, which I proceeded to run on the whole library (including itself); and because I was not too careful in all of my code, the normalizer did modify itself. I also wrote a Partial Evaluator (recently accepted by SCP) called MapleMIX - available on sourceforge - but could not quite apply it fully to itself (that wasn't the design goal).
回答12:
Have you looked at Java ? Java 6 has a compiler API, so you can write code and compile it within the Java VM.
回答13:
In Lua, you can "hook" existing code, which allows you to attach arbitrary code to function calls. It goes something like this:
local oldMyFunction = myFunction
myFunction = function(arg)
if arg.blah then return oldMyFunction(arg) end
else
--do whatever
end
end
You can also simply plow over functions, which sort of gives you self modifying code.
回答14:
Dlang's LLVM implementation contains the @dynamicCompile and @dynamicCompileConst function attributes, allowing you to compile according to the native host's the instruction set at compile-time, and change compile-time constants in runtime through recompilation.
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/bskpxhrqyfkvaqzoospx@forum.dlang.org
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3057487/programming-language-for-self-modifying-code