Hacker News Reader

0 is the first element in the array; so, I bet that wasn't a constant, but honestly what the programmer did.

In either case, we have the bytecode; and shouldn't what is written above compile to the same bytecode?

Some code obfuscators will introduce illegal programming constructs. Most VMs will tolerate these but the decompiled source cannot be recompiled without fixing these. Not saying that's what happened here, but it is an option.

So it is a very real possibility that an obfuscation technique that basically throws random bits of code with random extra params in another method and calls them at it would could have been used here. Interesting. It would certainly make more sense.

To demonstrate my point, try writing the following into C.java:

public class C { public int foo() { return 1; int b = 1 + 2; } }

Then compile it (javac C.java). You will get the following:

C.java:4: unreachable statement int b = 1 + 2; ^ C.java:5: missing return statement } ^ 2 errors

Therefore this code is not compileable, thus telling us that the initial code blob could never have run in the first place.

I'm not sure why the decompiler returns non-compiling java code, I just know it does.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com