Having access to the source code actually makes reading machine code easier, so you’re also wrong on this entirely different thing you’re going on about.
well assembly is technically “source code” and can be 1:1 translated to and from binary, excluding “syntactic sugar” stuff like macros and labels added on top.
By excluded he means macro assemblers which in my mind do qualify as an actual langauge as they have more complicated syntax than instruction arg1, arg2 …
The code is produced by the compiler but they are not the original source. To qualify as source code it needs to be in the original language it was written in and a one for one copy. Calling compiler produced assembly source code is wrong as it isn’t what the author wrote and their could be many versions of it depending on architecture.
No, it is wrong. Machine code is not source code.
And even if you had the source code it may not necessarily qualify as open source.
Removed by mod
A decompiler doesnt give you access to the comments, variable names, which is an important part of every source code
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
But it is extremely time-consuming. Open source code makes it transparent and easy to read, that’s what it is about: transparency
A decompiler won’t give you the source code. Just some code that might not even necessarily work when compiled back.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
From the point of view of the decompiler machine code is indeed the source code though
Try converting from English to Japanese and back to English.
Removed by mod
A fancy way to say do nothing is not the same as translating back and forth. Example: Show me the intermediate translation.
Also we live in a 64bit world now old man
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Still not the actual source code, bucko.
Removed by mod
Having access to the source code actually makes reading machine code easier, so you’re also wrong on this entirely different thing you’re going on about.
well assembly is technically “source code” and can be 1:1 translated to and from binary, excluding “syntactic sugar” stuff like macros and labels added on top.
But those things you’re excluding are the most important parts of the source code…
By excluded he means macro assemblers which in my mind do qualify as an actual langauge as they have more complicated syntax than instruction arg1, arg2 …
The code is produced by the compiler but they are not the original source. To qualify as source code it needs to be in the original language it was written in and a one for one copy. Calling compiler produced assembly source code is wrong as it isn’t what the author wrote and their could be many versions of it depending on architecture.