alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 years agoIts not wrong thoughlemmy.worldimagemessage-square135fedilinkarrow-up1900arrow-down184
arrow-up1816arrow-down1imageIts not wrong thoughlemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 2 years agomessage-square135fedilink
minus-squarenewIdentity@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up14·2 years agoA decompiler won’t give you the source code. Just some code that might not even necessarily work when compiled back.
minus-squareamki@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·2 years agoFrom the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though
minus-squareover_clox@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down6·2 years 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-up2arrow-down9·2 years agoYou’re actually chatting with a hacker that made No-CD hacks.
A decompiler won’t give you the source code. Just some code that might not even necessarily work when compiled back.
From the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though
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.