References (select)
If you simply want to fix a bug or change a string in an old EXE (and you lost the source), you don't need the whole source code. purebasic decompiler better
Lost a PB source? Wanted to see how a certain library works internally? Or are you firmly against decompilation? Let’s discuss – but keep it constructive. References (select) If you simply want to fix
If a user compiles with “Enable Debugger” but strips after? That’s lossy. A better approach would be an optional “embed source map” flag, like .pdb for PB. That would be opt-in and make decompilation trivial when authorized. Or are you firmly against decompilation
Better backup prevents need for better decompiler.
: PureBasic uses static libraries for things like OpenWindow() or MessageRequester() . If you see calls to these in the assembly, you can quickly identify what that section of code is doing.
Compile: a$ = "Hello " + "World" . Does the decompiler show the concatenation, or does it show two separate string loads? A better tool folds constants.