From: m1@m1.com   
      
   Hello...   
      
      
   More of my philosophy about reverse engineering..   
      
   I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also   
   invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..   
      
      
   Simply pulling a piece of software through a decompiler does not   
   directly yield easily readable code for several reasons.   
      
   First of all, names of variables and functions are not kept through the   
   compilation process, so the decompiler will assign generic names. It is   
   much harder to read code that looks like "f8s6ex2(i37zc, sk1eo)" than it   
   is to read "CalculatePrice(articleId, amount)".   
      
   Secondly, a compiler has a variety of optimization tricks that it will   
   use during compilation to make the code more efficient. A decompiler   
   will return this "optimized" code, which will look a lot less readable   
   than the original.   
      
   Just compiling the Dellhi mode of freepascal source code with   
   optimizations (-O2 and up) and stripping all debug and profile   
   information, and apply smartlinking, will make it almost   
   un-decompilable.  Not only FPC, but also Delphi.   
      
   The level of software reverse complexity is different according to   
   different program languages. generally speaking, compiled language   
   reverse engineering is more difficult than interpreted language. in   
   compiled languages, I think that C++ or the Delphi mode of Freepascal   
   reverse engineering is the most difficult job. why? because it is very   
   hard to transform assembly language into high level language(C++) or to   
   Delphi mode of freepascal as i am also explaining above.   
      
   So in reverse engineering there is almost no way to re-create the   
   Delphi mode of freepascal or Delphi source code from the binary.   
      
      
   Thank you,   
   Amine Moulay Ramdane.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)