5 ms·

I don't think it ever included actual source code, but .NET IL is just so rich that it made it extremely trivial to decompile, no?

junon 3y ago
It indeed did, you could open up the .exe in notepad for example. It was all there.
- orphea 3y ago
  This doesn't sound right. C# has always been a compiled language (to MSIL), from the earliest versions of .NET.
  - xen0 3y ago
    But that doesn't mean the source code wouldn't necessarily be exuded in a debug build. I don't know the truth of the original statement, but it isn't too unbelievable.
  - pjerem 3y ago
    This does sound unsurprising if you talk about a debug binary. It would allows you to debug it with the original source code. You are not supposed to run debug builds in production. But nothing will prevent you from doing it. Production binaries of course doesn’t embed any source or debugging symbols. It’s like erroneously shipping source maps files into your front end production build. It shouldn’t happen and it’s not necessary, but it’s just one configuration variable away so it happens a lot.
    - sacrosancty 3y ago
      [dead]
  - junon 3y ago
    Never said the source was used to run the program. It was included for debug builds.
    - orphea 3y ago
      Sorry - I wasn't able to convey my thought. There was no reason for the C# compiler to include the source code into the binary. Into the debugging symbols (which is a separate file) - maybe..? Anyway, I went ahead and compiled a debug app on .NET 1.1. The binary does not include the source code. And neither does the PDB. It includes a file path to the source though ("Visual Studio Projects\ConsoleApplication1\Class1.cs").
      - junon 3y ago
        Back then things were different. I'm talking c. 2008.
        orphea 3y ago
        .NET 1.1 is 2003, should be "back then" enough. When compiled with VS 2008 and .NET 3.5, the binary does not include the source code either. You might confuse readable parts in the binary with the metadata. [0] https://stackoverflow.com/q/65699183 https://stackoverflow.com/q/65699183 [1] https://stackoverflow.com/q/4700317 https://stackoverflow.com/q/4700317
        junon 3y ago
        Nope. I explicitly remember the source code being there.
        orphea 3y ago
        The cool thing about being in 2023 is that you don't have to believe me. Winding up a Windows XP virtual machine with Visual Studio of your choice takes 15-20 minutes.
        3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

junon 3y ago

It indeed did, you could open up the .exe in notepad for example. It was all there.

orphea 3y ago
This doesn't sound right. C# has always been a compiled language (to MSIL), from the earliest versions of .NET.
- xen0 3y ago
  But that doesn't mean the source code wouldn't necessarily be exuded in a debug build. I don't know the truth of the original statement, but it isn't too unbelievable.
- pjerem 3y ago
  This does sound unsurprising if you talk about a debug binary. It would allows you to debug it with the original source code. You are not supposed to run debug builds in production. But nothing will prevent you from doing it. Production binaries of course doesn’t embed any source or debugging symbols. It’s like erroneously shipping source maps files into your front end production build. It shouldn’t happen and it’s not necessary, but it’s just one configuration variable away so it happens a lot.
  - sacrosancty 3y ago
    [dead]
- junon 3y ago
  Never said the source was used to run the program. It was included for debug builds.
  - orphea 3y ago
    Sorry - I wasn't able to convey my thought. There was no reason for the C# compiler to include the source code into the binary. Into the debugging symbols (which is a separate file) - maybe..? Anyway, I went ahead and compiled a debug app on .NET 1.1. The binary does not include the source code. And neither does the PDB. It includes a file path to the source though ("Visual Studio Projects\ConsoleApplication1\Class1.cs").
    - junon 3y ago
      Back then things were different. I'm talking c. 2008.
      - orphea 3y ago
        .NET 1.1 is 2003, should be "back then" enough. When compiled with VS 2008 and .NET 3.5, the binary does not include the source code either. You might confuse readable parts in the binary with the metadata. [0] https://stackoverflow.com/q/65699183 https://stackoverflow.com/q/65699183 [1] https://stackoverflow.com/q/4700317 https://stackoverflow.com/q/4700317
        junon 3y ago
        Nope. I explicitly remember the source code being there.
        orphea 3y ago
        The cool thing about being in 2023 is that you don't have to believe me. Winding up a Windows XP virtual machine with Visual Studio of your choice takes 15-20 minutes.
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]