Decompiler

[Ninkazu]

A comma? Glenn... you're slipping!

[Glenn]

;

[Hexadecimal Disaster]

Then what's the problem with my point? I said (or at least my intention was to say) almost the same thing as Toonski. Maybe the problem was my internal spanish/english decompiler that misinterpreted my thoughts.

...or maybe the part "it *should* be easier for the machine to recompose the code compiled" was the problem?

[Glenn]

As with most "should bes", it arose from misinformedness and a really bad analogy, and is really just a "want-to-be. " (And *what* in God's still partially green Earth are you doing trying to get someone/something else to interpret your *thoughts*? You aren't female, are you?)

[Hexadecimal Disaster]

You can ask my alter-ego for that. :wink:

[Glenn]

:

[DrV]

i don't see any problems here.

every ASM command can be translated to a qbasic command and vice versa.

Well, I don't know how complex QB's compiler is, but there's probably a well-defined sequence of instructions that is generated by each QB command. You couldn't hardly make a single ASM statement for something like COS or PRINT USING. Besides, all the comments and stuff would be gone, and the variable names would probably be changed too.

[Agamemnus]

Sorry, I meant sequence of instructions.

[DrV]

Yeah, then you probably could code one, but I wouldn't want to... :lol: the only use I would have for a decompiler is to see other people's source (I back up every day) although that is morally wrong, yada yada yada, and a better solution is to find open source projects, but the very best stuff is almost always written by some huge company with a skunk works project that only 3.5 people have seen the source to...

[Glenn]

going one direction in no way means that there's a such a sequence in the reverse direction. Will you people give this up? Actually *learning* something is so much more fun.