5 ms·

Having a standard bytecode would make it much harder to steal code which is much needed as web and mobile applications shift towards using lots of JavaScript.

by amix 16y ago

Having a standard bytecode would make it much harder to steal code which is much needed as web and mobile applications shift towards using lots of JavaScript. Currently it's way too easy to steal everything since the whole source is exposed. You can obfuscate JavaScript and CSS, but the main semantics will still be there and someone that's interested will still steal your code (this has happend twice to us, even if all of our JS is obfuscated using Google Closure...) The same thing could happen with bytecode, but their takeout would not be maintainable. Obfuscated JavaScript is still maintainable, since the structure and semantics are largely there.

dedward 16y ago
I'd counter that that ability to easily copy what the browser sees and dissect it is what leads to rapid growth and innovation on the web front.... obfuscating everything will act counter to that, and leave the web not nearly as nice a place as we'd like it to be.
tptacek 16y ago
Bytecode-compiled languages are dreadfully easy to decompile.
- amix 16y ago
  The point isn't that you can't decompile bytecode-languages, but that the decompiled bytecode is a lot harder to maintain than obfuscated JavaScript...
contextfree 16y ago
If anything I think e.g. .NET/CLR bytecode is easier to reverse engineer than obfuscated JavaScript, because of the type metadata.
- amix 16y ago
  With obfuscated JavaScript you get all the sematics and for the most time all the global functions and data structures names since they aren't obfuscated away. This is a lot more structure and information than you get in your average bytecode code (especially since bytecode tends to be much more low level than something like obfuscated JavaScript).
  - contextfree 16y ago
    Have you ever looked at e.g. .NET assemblies in Reflector? It will decompile them into C# code that usually isn't even all that strange or hard to follow. There's plenty of structure and information there.

by amix 16y ago

dedward 16y ago

I'd counter that that ability to easily copy what the browser sees and dissect it is what leads to rapid growth and innovation on the web front.... obfuscating everything will act counter to that, and leave the web not nearly as nice a place as we'd like it to be.

tptacek 16y ago

Bytecode-compiled languages are dreadfully easy to decompile.

amix 16y ago
The point isn't that you can't decompile bytecode-languages, but that the decompiled bytecode is a lot harder to maintain than obfuscated JavaScript...

contextfree 16y ago

If anything I think e.g. .NET/CLR bytecode is easier to reverse engineer than obfuscated JavaScript, because of the type metadata.

amix 16y ago
With obfuscated JavaScript you get all the sematics and for the most time all the global functions and data structures names since they aren't obfuscated away. This is a lot more structure and information than you get in your average bytecode code (especially since bytecode tends to be much more low level than something like obfuscated JavaScript).
- contextfree 16y ago
  Have you ever looked at e.g. .NET assemblies in Reflector? It will decompile them into C# code that usually isn't even all that strange or hard to follow. There's plenty of structure and information there.