4 replies to this topic

[Jasonfran]

Found this http://mta.dzek.eu/compiler/ thought it may come of use. I think it should work

[PixelToast]

its the same thing as running luac or string.dump

[Jasonfran]

Ok

[AfterLifeLochie]

As the LuaC format and the general dumping format of Lua is pretty open - in fact, Lua itself is completely open - it is merely a trivial task to convert the bytecode output back into human-readable code. Sure, you can remove the majority of the debug blocks which name the variables, but they can easily be replaced with placeholder-names and the like.

The same goes for Java - you can compile and obfuscate your code to an inch of it's digital life - the fact of the matter is, there are an enormous number of tools out there that will decompile most Java code back to a somewhat-reasonable source, and all the developer need do is refactor the variables to something more sensible.

The only advantage I can see to turning all your code into compiled or obfuscated - or even both - forms is to prevent the users who do not understand the Lua Runtime and it's byte-instructions from reversing said programs. There are some tools to dissect and analyse chunks of Lua bytecode already, and the entire Lua system is open-source. In the digital world, realistically, compilation and obfuscation are really just stopgaps, as anyone can pick up tools and start prodding around in byte-level instructions.

[tesla1889]

sorry to bring back an old thread, but i have to say this:

there is one advantage to precompiling your code.
it takes less time to load than lua source.
just know it's almost insignificant.