Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
Thanks
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Just keep using Java. It will be hard to read!
···
On Oct 7, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Igor K. wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Thanks
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
The good news: This was discussed extensively in this forum
(/list/newsgroup) just last week. Also, the week before that. Also, the
week before that.
The bad news: Despite over 30 years of technology research, nobody* has
ever discovered a method to go back in time and read old messages. If only
there were a way, my friend... if only.
Sorry I can't be more help.
*that asks this question
···
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:30:28 +0900, Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
--
Jay Levitt |
Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer
Why in the world are you using Ruby?
Ruby is *meant* to be joy and that's why is pretty and therefore
readable.
I stick with John: Just keep using Java. It IS ugly and noone will
read it!
:-E
···
On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, "Igor K." <testmyecli...@ua.fm> wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if you're serious.
···
On Oct 7, 2007, at 13:30 , Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
Igor K. wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?
The JRuby compiler can compile to Java bytecode and still run as normal; that might be an option for you. The resulting bytecode can only partially be decompiled into JRuby runtime code and can't currently be decompiled to Ruby at all.
It's on trunk, will be in release 1.1 next month.
- Charlie
Jay Levitt wrote:
···
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:30:28 +0900, Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?The good news: This was discussed extensively in this forum
(/list/newsgroup) just last week. Also, the week before that. Also, the
week before that.The bad news: Despite over 30 years of technology research, nobody* has
ever discovered a method to go back in time and read old messages. If only
there were a way, my friend... if only.Sorry I can't be more help.
*that asks this question
--
Jay Levitt |
Boston, MA | My character doesn't like it when they
Faster: jay at jay dot fm | cry or shout or hit.
http://www.jay.fm | - Kristoffer
Good post Jay Levitt.
PS: Why not do it in Octal? That will make it hard for a lot of people to
read, including your self hehe.
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com
aalfred wrote:
Hello,
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Why in the world are you using Ruby?
Ruby is *meant* to be joy and that's why is pretty and therefore
readable.
I stick with John: Just keep using Java. It IS ugly and noone will
read it!:-E
Or, if you really want to mix and match, migrate some "critical" algorithmic portions to C and compile them to executables and let your script interface with the executable in one of the many ways that are there.
That way, you protect some things, but get some of the benefits of Ruby anyway.
Cheers,
Mohit.
10/8/2007 | 3:46 PM.
···
On Oct 7, 10:30 pm, "Igor K." <testmyecli...@ua.fm> wrote:
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
···
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 13:30 , Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if you're serious.
Have you done performance profiling on the compiled executables? Any
improvement over running in the interpreter? If so that might be a
selling point.
Cheers,
Wincent
···
On Oct 9, 12:47 am, Ryan Davis <ryand-r...@zenspider.com> wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you're serious.
You don't make it sound as cool as it is... or as scary as it is,
depends on one's perspective... 
So, guys, Charles here is talking about the entire Ruby standard
library (that is, every .rb file under /usr/lib/ruby/1.8) turned into
a bunch of completely unreadable .class files. All the C-like Ruby,
Perl-like Ruby, LISP-like Ruby and other good stuff in that directory.
And it works. Wow!
···
On 10/9/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
The JRuby compiler can compile to Java bytecode and still run as normal;
--
Alexey Verkhovsky
CruiseControl.rb [http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com]
RubyWorks [http://rubyworks.thoughtworks.com]
John Joyce wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if you're serious.
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
No, he asked if *Igor* was serious.
But seriously ... sheesh ... what the world needs more than anything else is a language in which one can think of software and it automatically appears, but only its creator can read it. We could call it ... uh ... APL.
<ducking>
Am I as tired as I look?
···
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 13:30 , Igor K. wrote:
John Joyce wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if you're serious.
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
Something tells me that $2500 is cheaper than the time you'd need to do that, plus you'd still get to develop in Ruby.
···
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 13:30 , Igor K. wrote:
--
Alex
Yes, we're serious. If you plan on making money off of software, $2500 isn't be much money, 100 sales at $25 each.
···
On Oct 8, 2007, at 21:35 , John Joyce wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
On Oct 7, 2007, at 13:30 , Igor K. wrote:
I need to make my code unreadable, in Java(j2me) i used some
programs(obfuscators) to do it.
does ruby has this?Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if you're serious.
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
John Joyce wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you're serious.Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in
C/C++ maybe even Cobol.
The price isn't the really interesting point here - if lack of this kind
of obfuscation would be the show-stopper for an ISV, this price isn't
all that unaffordable (especially in the US I guess). But this has
alerady been pointed out.
My main concern would be, after reading the announcement page, that
based on the software's restrictions (which is printed with half the
font size near the bottom of the page), I guess there's virtually no
Ruby code which meets those requirements. If for no other reason, just
because it uses libraries which aren't designed with that in mind.
Explicit returns everywhere? No code blocks? If I have to pay $2500 just
for the opportunity to *rewrite* all my code in a really C-like manner,
just so that it can be translated into actual C, then I'd say it's
really not worth it. In that case, I could actually have written it in C
in the first place.
Please correct me if I'm overly wrong here.
mortee
···
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
Its roughly the same due to use of rb_funcall().
···
On Oct 9, 2007, at 03:35 , Wincent Colaiuta wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:47 am, Ryan Davis <ryand-r...@zenspider.com> wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in
an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license
fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if
you're serious.Have you done performance profiling on the compiled executables? Any
improvement over running in the interpreter? If so that might be a
selling point.
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
Alexey Verkhovsky wrote:
···
On 10/9/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
The JRuby compiler can compile to Java bytecode and still run as normal;
You don't make it sound as cool as it is... or as scary as it is,
depends on one's perspective...So, guys, Charles here is talking about the entire Ruby standard
library (that is, every .rb file under /usr/lib/ruby/1.8) turned into
a bunch of completely unreadable .class files. All the C-like Ruby,
Perl-like Ruby, LISP-like Ruby and other good stuff in that directory.
And it works. Wow!
Well thanks for that It is pretty cool...hopefully people will start to realize it once we get 1.1 out the door.
- Charlie
For the fact that obfuscation is pretty much pointless in the first place,
anyone who is determined enough deserves to pay that kind of price tag 
···
On 10/9/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
Yes, we're serious. If you plan on making money off of software,
$2500 isn't be much money, 100 sales at $25 each.
if you are using libraries it's extremely likely that the license of said libs will prohibit that which you seek. fyi.
···
On Oct 9, 2007, at 10:22 AM, mortee wrote:
If for no other reason, just
because it uses libraries which aren't designed with that in mind.
--
it is not enough to be compassionate. you must act.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama
Why would you obfuscate external libraries? You only need to obfuscate your intellectual property. Leave everything else in ruby.
···
On Oct 9, 2007, at 09:22 , mortee wrote:
John Joyce wrote:
On Oct 8, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Ryan Davis wrote:
Eric and I wrote one (google for zenobfuscate)... It has been used in an OSX (rubycocoa) production app. We decided to put a $2500 license fee on it to filter the serious from the non-serious. Let me know if you're serious.
Is that serious? At that price, it would be worth it to just write it in
C/C++ maybe even Cobol.The price isn't the really interesting point here - if lack of this kind of obfuscation would be the show-stopper for an ISV, this price isn't all that unaffordable (especially in the US I guess). But this has alerady been pointed out.
My main concern would be, after reading the announcement page, that based on the software's restrictions (which is printed with half the font size near the bottom of the page), I guess there's virtually no Ruby code which meets those requirements. If for no other reason, just because it uses libraries which aren't designed with that in mind.
--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars