alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 year agoIts not wrong thoughlemmy.worldimagemessage-square134fedilinkarrow-up1902
arrow-up1902imageIts not wrong thoughlemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square134fedilink
minus-squarenewIdentity@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up14·1 year agoA decompiler won’t give you the source code. Just some code that might not even necessarily work when compiled back.
minus-squareover_clox@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·1 year agoAnd? Decompilers aren’t for noobs. So what if it gives you variable and function names like A000, A001, etc? It can still lead a seasoned programmer where to go in the raw machine code to mod some things.
minus-squareover_clox@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoYou’re actually chatting with a hacker that made No-CD hacks.
minus-squareamki@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoFrom the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though
A decompiler won’t give you the source code. Just some code that might not even necessarily work when compiled back.
And? Decompilers aren’t for noobs. So what if it gives you variable and function names like A000, A001, etc?
It can still lead a seasoned programmer where to go in the raw machine code to mod some things.
You’re actually chatting with a hacker that made No-CD hacks.
From the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though