3 ms·

That depends on the library, of course. Yes, if the library is open source or shared source, you can step into it with no trouble. But if you're using a closed

That depends on the library, of course. Yes, if the library is open source or shared source, you can step into it with no trouble. But if you're using a closed source library (a phenomenon that's far more common in the Windows world than in the Linux world), you're eventually going to run into problems where the library returns an unexpected value and you just don't know why.

bunderbunder 15y ago
But even then, it depends on the library. For the most part .NET assemblies are so easy to decompile that even when you don't have the source that doesn't end up being much of an impediment. (The only thing you really don't get is comments.) There are some vendors who insist on obfuscating their assemblies, but they're easy enough to avoid.
- Danieru 15y ago
  Even if they don't obfuscate the library's license will often have an anti-reverse engineering clauses.
  - ajryan 15y ago
    Seriously? I can see a license that prevents you from creating a clone by inspecting decompiled source.. but a license that doesn't allow you to attach a debugger?
    - bunderbunder 15y ago
      Wouldn't be enforceable, I'm guessing, as per the protections for reverse engineering that the DMCA codified in 17 USC ss. 1201(f): . . .a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs. . .
MichaelGG 15y ago
He's referring to the .NET base class libraries (System.* and others). Microsoft releases the source so you can debug right into it.[1] The BCL is far from "open source", it's a "read only, nothing else, not even compile" type license IIRC. But you can step right into the C# implementation of most of the shipped-with-.NET libraries. 1: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-...

bunderbunder 15y ago

But even then, it depends on the library. For the most part .NET assemblies are so easy to decompile that even when you don't have the source that doesn't end up being much of an impediment. (The only thing you really don't get is comments.) There are some vendors who insist on obfuscating their assemblies, but they're easy enough to avoid.

Danieru 15y ago
Even if they don't obfuscate the library's license will often have an anti-reverse engineering clauses.
- ajryan 15y ago
  Seriously? I can see a license that prevents you from creating a clone by inspecting decompiled source.. but a license that doesn't allow you to attach a debugger?
  - bunderbunder 15y ago
    Wouldn't be enforceable, I'm guessing, as per the protections for reverse engineering that the DMCA codified in 17 USC ss. 1201(f): . . .a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs. . .

MichaelGG 15y ago

He's referring to the .NET base class libraries (System.* and others). Microsoft releases the source so you can debug right into it.[1] The BCL is far from "open source", it's a "read only, nothing else, not even compile" type license IIRC. But you can step right into the C# implementation of most of the shipped-with-.NET libraries. 1: http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-...