alphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 year agoIts not wrong thoughlemmy.worldimagemessage-square135fedilinkarrow-up1901arrow-down185
arrow-up1816arrow-down1imageIts not wrong thoughlemmy.worldalphacyberranger@lemmy.world to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square135fedilink
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-squareamki@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year agoFrom the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though
minus-squareover_clox@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4arrow-down6·1 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-up2arrow-down9·1 year 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.