Say Peter, how would you go about making your code unreadable then if this is not the way? Simply obfuscate it? That does not do a well enough job in my opinion.
If you're trying to make your code "unreadable", then obfuscation is what you're looking for. Keep in mind, obfuscation does not make your code "secure". There are such thing as deobfuscators.
If you want to "secure" your source code, well, there is little you can do in this area for the following reasons:
Dynamic languages are easily accessible/readable.
Compiled languages that compile to intermediate byte-code can be decompiled:
You can open the binary in Ollydbg on Windows and search for strings. It will be visible as plain text. But the source code itself will be in assembly, because we are decompiling a native code.
On macOS, you can view using the free version of Hopper disassembler.
Log in to continue
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Say Peter, how would you go about making your code unreadable then if this is not the way? Simply obfuscate it? That does not do a well enough job in my opinion.
It depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're trying to make your code "unreadable", then obfuscation is what you're looking for. Keep in mind, obfuscation does not make your code "secure". There are such thing as deobfuscators.
If you want to "secure" your source code, well, there is little you can do in this area for the following reasons:
You can open the binary in Ollydbg on Windows and search for strings. It will be visible as plain text. But the source code itself will be in assembly, because we are decompiling a native code.
On macOS, you can view using the free version of Hopper disassembler.