Anonymous Coward writes:
"Dan Luu, in his blog, suggests that editing binaries is something that we should consider from time to time. From that blog:
Editing binaries is a trick that comes in handy a few times a year. You don't often need to, but when you do, there's no alternative. When I mention patching binaries, I get one of two reactions: complete shock or no reaction at all. As far as I can tell, this is because most people have one of these two models of the world:
- There exists source code. Compilers do something to source code to make it runnable. If you change the source code, different things happen.
- There exists a processor. The processor takes some bits and decodes them to make things happen. If you change the bits, different things happen.
If you have the first view, breaking out a hex editor to modify a program is the action of a deranged lunatic. If you have the second view, editing binaries is the most natural thing in the world. Why wouldn't you just edit the binary?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:36AM
I know that the online community made a patch for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri to fix a few slightly crippling (for competitive play) bugs, and since the game is closed-source, I can only assume somebody went in with a hex editor. So yeah, in that case it's because they didn't have any choice.
Those two viewpoints are mutually exclusive, either. I'm so glad I had to take that assembly course in college, as it really made the connection between what we do in C-like languages and how that ends up being bits. Not that I could translate compiled machine code even with a code table without going insane, but hey...
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday March 25 2014, @10:39AM
*aren't mutually exclusive. Whoops.
A Discordian is Prohibited of Believing what he reads.