8 ms·
Wow: "Source code is a version of computer software which is usually much easier to read and understand than the end version in a finished product, and could be
by ryanjshaw 5y ago
Wow: "Source code is a version of computer software which is usually much easier to read and understand than the end version in a finished product, and could be used to reverse engineer parts of the product."
- aurbano 5y ago> usually much easier to read and understand They would be doing something seriously wrong if that wasn't always the case haha
- ejolto 5y agoMaybe EA writes their games in brainfuck.
- odiroot 5y agoRemember the golden days of Perl?
- Retr0spectrum 5y agoCodebases with high levels of abstraction and metaprogramming are often easier to understand in IDA/Ghidra, if your goal is to understand how a specific part of the program works.
- meowface 5y agoIf a (non-malware) application is easier to understand in IDA than from its source code, something has gone horribly wrong.
- dkdbejwi383 5y agoGame programming in particular is often full of interesting hacks and difficult to read code, because in game programming performance trumps all else.
- meowface 5y agoSure, I understand that. But I imagine the IDA views would still be even more difficult to read.
- Retr0spectrum 5y agoGoing horribly wrong is somewhat typical for large software projects.
- bayindirh 5y agoOh really? Didn't know that! Wish we had this source code thingy available for the critical programs that we use everyday, so I can look to them and understand how they work.
- scollet 5y agoOne day, only the machines will understand.
- SilasX 5y agoI'm sorry, what's the objection here? Source code is better for understanding how a program works in a big-picture sense, compared to the binary. This sentence conveys that in a way that a lay audience can understand. What's the problem?
- bayindirh 5y agoIt was just a light hearted take on the wording of the definition, combined with a slight irony that we indeed have some critical stuff open sourced with pretty neat (read xGPL) licenses, which was unimaginable ~20 years ago. Maybe it's an outdated type of humor, but I didn't see a reason to stop myself. While this is HN, we can use some old Slashdot style now and then IMHO.
- NmAmDa 5y agoisn't that what we call "well documented code following best coding practices" in our world ?
- dlkf 5y agoI felt that this was well written. Do you have a better definition of source code that is: - Accessible to the general public (it's a BBC article) - One sentence long (you will lose readers if this becomes a cs101 lecture) - Articulates why a source code leak matters
- bayindirh 5y agoI don't think it's a bad definition but, it sounds a little bit inaccurate here and there. Something in the lines of "Source code is the human readable version of the end product before it's packaged for computers, and it's much easier to read and understand. Also, the source code may allow reverse engineering of the product in question" would be more precise and similarly understandable IMHO.
- phist_mcgee 5y ago- packaged is a word that doesn't make sense unless you explain it. Do you mean putting the end product in a box? - I would say even that reverse engineering, as mentioned, is not something the layman understands.
- amarant 5y agoYeah i also reacted to the reverse engineering part. But mostly that if you have the original source code, can you really call it reverse engineering? Other than that the article was fine IMO
- lewispollard 5y agoI also thought that was funny wording, but I guess if you only have partial source code of a program, it can help to reverse engineer the full program (as you'll have some access to symbol names, structures, patterns etc)
- kevincox 5y ago> packaged is a word that doesn't make sense unless you explain it. Do you mean putting the end product in a box? I mean yes. It isn't that long ago that software was sold in boxes. So the packaging analogy is probably within reach of most people. But maybe "released" or similar would be more widely understood.
- chtitux 5y agoSo where is the source code of this Perl script ?
- bserge 5y agoYeah, EA source code is probably much easier to understand than their end products.
- scrps 5y agoI've always described source code to non-technical people as the recipe and ingredients, compiling as the baking, and the software as the bread loaf. Seems to land for most people.
- koheripbal 5y agoI downvote comments like this, not because I disagree with them, but because they digress the conversation from what I think is more important - the hack itself. Hope that's ok.
- rchaud 5y agoIt's a cultural quirk of HN to go into linguistic hair-splitting mode when it comes cybersecurity incidents as described by a media outlet whose audience is the general public. All I can say is thank you to danG for implementing expand/collapse on comment threads so you can quickly move on to comments discussing the topic itself.
- tus89 5y agoI feel the "usually" might be ironic humor.
- kizer 5y agoI know, right. They tried their best.
- acallaghan 5y agoAll the BBC articles are meant for everyone to understand, they are not aimed at engineers, or CS grads (or even graduates of any kind, for that matter). Did you really need to read what source code was again from the BBC? If you know already, great - but if you don't, why do you need to know what a compiler is? It's similar to their general coverage of the covid vaccine - does everyone that reads an article about the vaccine really need to know the scientific debate, context, cohort data, vaccine action detail? Or just that the vaccine works & is safe?