a previous relevant question from me is here Reverse Engineering old paint programs
I have set up my base of operations here: http://animatorpro.org
wiki coming soon.
Okay, so now I have a 300,000 line legacy MSDOS codebase. It's sort of a "be careful what you wish for" situation. I am not an experienced C programmer. I'm not entirely inexperienced either, but for all intents and purposes I'm a noob to the language and in particular the intricacies of its libraries. I am especially ignorant of the vagaries of the differences between C programs written specifically for MSDOS and programs that are cross platform. However I have been studying this code base for over a year now, and this is what I know about Animator Pro:
Compilers and tools used:
Watcom C compiler
tcmake (make program from Turbo C)
386asm, a specialised assembler for the Phar Lap dos extender
and of course, the Phar Lap dos extender itself.
a selection of obscure dos utilities
Much of the compilation seems to be driven by batch files. Though I have obtained copies of all these tools, I have not yet succeeded at compiling it. (though I have compiled its older brother, autodesk animator original.
It's got a plugin system that replicates DLL before DLL's were available, based on REX. The plugin system handles:
Video Drivers (with a plethora of included VESA drivers)
Input drivers (including wacom tablets, and keyboards)
Drawing Tools
Inks (Like photoshop's filters, or blending modes)
Scripting Addons (essentially compiled scripts)
File formats
It's got its own script interpreter named POCO, based on the C language- The scripting language has enough power to do virtually all the things the plugin system can do- Just slower.
Given this information, this is my development plan. Please criticise this. The source code is available in the link above, so you can easily, if you are so inclined, assess the situation yourself.
Compile with its original tools.
Switch to using DJGPP, and make the necessary changes to get it to compile with that, plus the original assembler.
Include the Allegro.cc "Game" library, and switch over as much functionality to that library as possible- Perhaps by simply writing new video and input drivers that use the Allegro API. I'm thinking allegro rather than SDL because: there is a DOS version of Allegro, and fascinatingly, one of its core functions is the ability to play Animator Pro's native format FLIC.
Hopefully after 3, I will have eliminated most or all of the Assembler in the project. I say hopefully, because it's in an obscure dialect that doesn't assemble in any modern free assembler without significant modification. I have tried them all. Whatever is left gets converted to assemble in NASM, or to C code if I can define the assembler's actual function.
Switch the dos extender from Phar Lap to HX Dos http://www.japheth.de/HX.html, Which promises to replicate as much of the WIN32 api as possible. Then make all the necessary code changes for that to work.
Switch to the win32 version of Allegro.cc, assuming that the win32 version can run on top of HXDos. Make any further necessary changes
Modify the plugin system to use some kind of standard cross platform plugin library. What this would be, I have no idea. Maybe you can offer some suggestions? I talked to the developer who originally wrote the plugin system, and he said some of the things it does aren't possible on modern OS's because of segmentation restrictions. I'm not sure what this means, but I'm guessing it means all the plugins will need to be rewritten almost from scratch.
Magically, I got all the above done, and we can try and make it run in windows, osx, and linux, whilst dealing with other cross platform niggles like long file names, and things I haven't thought of.
Anyone got a problem with any of this? Is allegro a good choice? if not, why? what would you do about this plugin system? What would you do different? Is this whole thing foolish, and should I just rewrite it from scratch, using the original as inpiration? (it would apparently take the original developer "About a month" to do that)
One thing I haven't covered above is the text/font system. Not sure what to do about that, but Animator Pro has its own custom font format, but also is able to use Postscript Type 1 fonts, and some other formats.
My biggest concern with your plan, in a nutshell: Your approach seems to be to attempt to keep the whole enormous thing working at all times, tweaking the environment ever-further away from DOS. During each tweak to the environment, that means you will have approximately a billion subtle assumptions that might have broken at once, none of which you necessarily understand yet. Untangling them all at once will be incredibly painful.
If I were doing the port, my approach would be to disable as much code as possible to get SOMETHING running in a modern environment, and bring the parts back online, one piece at a time. Write a simple test harness program that loads a display driver and draws some stuff, and compile it for DOS to make sure you understand the interface. Then write some C code that implements the same interface, but with Allegro (or SDL or SFML), and make that program work under Windows or Linux. When the output differs, you have a simple test case to work from.
Your entire job on this port is swapping out implementations of various interfaces and functions with completely new ones. This is a job that unit testing excels at. Don't write any new code without a test of some kind that runs on the old code under DOS! Make your potential problems as small and simple as you possibly can. Port assembly code instead of rewriting it only if you're reasonably confident that it will actually make your job easier (ie, algorithmic stuff that compiles fine with few tweaks under NASM). Don't bite off a bigger piece than you can comfortably fit in your brain at once.
I, for one, look forward to seeing your progress! I think what you're attempting to do is great. Thanks for doing it.
Hmmm - I might approach it by writing an OpenGL video "driver" for it. and todays machines are fast enough with tons of ram that you could do all the pixel specific algorithms on main CPU into a back buffer and it would work. As the "generic" VGA driver just mapped the video buffer to a pointer this would be a place to start. There was a zoom mode in the UI so you can look at the pixels on a high res display.
It is often very difficult to take an existing non-trivial code base that wasn't written with portability in mind - you mention a few - and then try to make it portable. There will be a lot of problems on the way. It is probably a better idea to start from scratch and rewrite the code using the existing code as reference only. If you start from scratch you can leverage existing portable UI solution in your new project like Qt.
Related
I am getting interested in the Oberon language and I would like to know: is the language actually used by common programmers or is it still only used by researchers? Is it production-ready? What I have in mind are non-scientific applications requiring GUI support and possibly Internet connectivity (at least client-side POP3 and SMTP functionality).
Also, which of the Oberon flavors would you recommend for my needs (Oberon2, Active Oberon, etc)? The simpler, the better, as long as it is well maintained and has some community.
If possible, I would like to run my applications in a conventional host environment (Windows or Linux), without the need for a special runtime environment or a special operating system.
Thanks
BlackBox has some of what you want, runs on flavors of Windows.
There are also some environments that compile to Java bytecode and target the JVM.
Look at POW, and Gardens Point Component Pascal.
I happen to be using some command-line only tools that are Oberon Compilers.
OO2C is an Oberon to C compiler (but the output is not for human consumption).
Ofront is an Oberon to Human-Readable C, but I haven't yet set up a linux box to run it on. (otherwise, it is supposed to run inside of BlackBox on Windows).
There is also Oxford Oberon Compiler by Professor Spivey. A VERY enjoyable Compiler that compiles to a Virtual Machine, but the whole object code is a self-contained application (albeit command -line).
It is a VERY small download, meant for an educational environment, keeps everything CLEAN, and works well for prototyping some of the grunt work or procedures/modules of your code. It also is supposed to allow bitmap drawing in XWindows in Black and White only, probably for drawing graphs, etc, but I have not had an opportunity to use that feature yet.
It has a GUI-based debugger, profiling, and some other interesting tools, and still is very small by comparison to most modern compilers like gcc. It is also totally stand alone.
Works on Mac, Win, Linux, and has source.
By comparison, OO2C took me about a day of futzing and compiling to get it going (but it is working).
I don't have a Windows box right now, so I can't run my copy of BlackBox, but it had a full GUI, and lots of Source code available at the Component Pascal Collection website.
http://www.zinnamturm.eu/index.htm
If you are looking for source code you should also check out that site in hopes you don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Really a joy to step into Oberon after having to fight C/C++ all day long to get simple stuff done.
OBNC is a new compiler for the latest version (2016) of the original Oberon language by Niklaus Wirth. It compiles via C and makes it easy to interface to existing C libraries.
https://miasap.se/obnc/
Given that Oberon [language] was developed as a complete [operating-]system, and that ETH's CS department ran ALL its computers (even the secretary's) on it I should think it is application-ready. This according to the following PDF:
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~franz/Site/pubs-pdf/BC03.pdf
is the language actually used by common programmers or is it still only used by researchers?
There was/is little use of the original Oberon language outside academia; there was some industrial adaptation of Oberon dialects like e.g. Component Pascal.
Is it production-ready?
Depends on your requirements. Given todays expectations of software developers the (original) language and available toolchains seem very minimalistic.
non-scientific applications requiring GUI support and possibly Internet connectivity ... in a conventional host environment... which of the Oberon flavors would you recommend for my needs?
GUI support and network programming in a conventional host environment is e.g. supported by https://blackboxframework.org as already mentioned, which uses a language related to Oberon.
You could also have a look at https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon which includes a platform independend IDE with semantic navigation and a source-level debugger, plus a platform independent foreign function interface as a language extension which allows you to directly use any C shared library, and thus reuse the plethora of existing proven GUI or network libraries out there without having to program in C. It also offers a modern, lean syntax variant without all the semicolons and capitalized keywords, which should appeal especially to younger developers; but of course also the traditional syntax is supported, even mixed modern/traditional syntax projects.
I've been using a language for Garry's mod (A Source-engine based physics sandbox game) called Expression 2 for a while now, Expression 2 is very heavily based on C, in fact it's almost exactly the same except for the fact it uses ,'s or line-returns to end lines, rather than ;'s. At the suggestion of a friend I gave a C tutorial a look and I found the syntax and language instantly familiar, albeit with a number of scary looking semi-colons.
In the past I've dabbled with writing emulators in Expression 2 and have had some success with a chip8 emulator and a few headaches working on a Gameboy emulator. You see, one problem with Expression 2 is the lack of proper bitwise functions and switch-case statements (Something I'm really looking forward to using in C). Likewise as the language is being interpreted ontop of LUA it's naturally very slow, great for making stuff in garry's mod but not much else.
The advantages of course of Expression 2 are easy interaction with the Game itself, it was built just to do that, working with C however would be the opposite, where interacting with the OS can be the most frustrating part.
First of all I'm wondering what are the best available C compilers for Windows 7 64bit out there? I've given Visual C++ a whirl but find its myrid of options and configurations daunting and as someone who's just starting out I'd really like a compiler that just takes my .c or .txt or whatever and outputs an application, I don't need all the bells and whistles when I'm just starting out.
Secondly as I'd like to write emulators I need a good method of drawing on the screen, as per my understanding that requires an API to interact with the OS? What's the best API for Windows 7 64 in terms of ease of use and 2d drawing? and where can I find some good documentation or tutorials on said API?
Thank you for reading, I'm really looking forward to getting stuck in with some real programming but unfortunately tutorials usually skip over things like choosing a compiler :/
MinGW will give you a minimalistic (yet complete) environment for building C code. Either of SDL or DirectX is fine for 2D graphics (and more).
Most will agree that Intel C/C++ compiler still stands unbeaten, but you will be most likely OK with GCC/MinGW or MSVC (although I recommend avoiding MSVC if possible).
As for the API's. DirectX is Windows native and has best support, but you will be locked to Windows platform, but if that's what you are targeting, DirectX is your best shot I guess.
Well, a lot of questions and C makes some of them hard...
As far as compilers go, you have two common options: MSVC and GCC. MSVC is the commercial (but also freely usable) compiler/toolchain which is a bit behind on C compatibility. GCC has pretty good C99 support if you need it, and available for Windows as well: http://mingw-w64.sourceforge.net (*)
As for drawing on the screen, there is of course OpenGL, but that's maybe not the handiest for simple(?) 2D. Alternatives are: Direct2D, GDI(+) or any platform abstraction library like Glib which also provide simple drawing facilities.
(*) Although C compilers often come with a large set of options (you'll start to see why when you get better at coding in the language), compiling your source files to a runnable program will come down to this (GCC):
gcc -O2 *.c -lsomeLibraries -o program.exe
For the rest, read a good book, they also would get you started!
i have a unix c programming assignment in which i do some advanced C network programming.this is my first step into advance programming. so i was wondering what is the best combination of tools for this on a mac. using an IDE like Eclipse is how i'd normally do it but i have to make my own makefiles and stuff. so i would like to learn how it can be done effectively using may be emacs or vim + other tools. it will be quite a big project so i am worried about project management and debugging issues mostly as well as the productivity factor. in essence i want to learn how programmers do it in the professional environment without the bloated IDE part. i am using Snow Leopard.i would also delve into C++ and python in the future so may be something that will be useful for those as well.
I know you're asking for how to do it with makefiles/VI/etc. but on the Mac, Xcode is really the way to go, especially for large projects. It's a very effective wrapper that will call gcc and gdb and the linker for you. Especially when moving to a new platform, not having to worry with many of the pesky details will be a big leap in productivity. It's IDE debugger is quite awesome.
Of course you can also use makefiles etc. Many projects (just to take OpenSSL as an example) come with makefiles and you can compile them on the Mac from the commandline just like under the *ix operating systems, i.e. calling ./configure and then make. But setting up stuff like that (e.g. compiler options for universal binaries and such) is tedious while the IDE it's just a few options. Also, if you google for specific questions, you will find far more answers on how to do it with Xcode.
If you want to get started with Xcode, it's either on your Mac operating system CD (it just does not pre-install automatically) or you can download it from Apple. When you run it, just open a Mac OS X Project of type "Application - Commandline Tool" and you'll have a project with a main.c set up in a minute. You can then just run it or run it in the debugger like that and adding more source files to it is rather easy.
Xcode can be quite a beast for setting up an already large project (we ported a large project with DLLs and depending exes (overall 250000 lines of code) to the Mac and just getting that all set up wasn't what you call a piece of cake) but if you start from scratch you'll easily grow into it.
Bottom line is that Xcode certainly is equipped to deal with large projects and I can not imagine a more productive way of doing it (I have used hand written makefiles and such in the past so I know both worlds).
Xcode is your friend. It's free and is a very nice IDE. When you launch XCode, just start a new Console application (it'll be ANSI C).
Enjoy.
If learning the rudiments of unix editors, shell programming, make, etc., are part of the assignment, then you just need to dive in and learn what you need to learn. Some good books will help. Obviously you need K&R. I always liked the O'Reilly books for Unix stuff, usually because they are the thinnest. I hate thick computer books because they never get read. You should also learn how to use the man pages.
Vim vs. Emacs is a religious choice. If you ask any Unix guy what is the best, he will invariably tell you the one he learned first, because chances are he never learned the other. In my case, I've been using Vim so long that my escape key is worn out and the commands are hard-wired into my brain. Obviously, I think it's way better than emacs (which I never learned!) If you are lucky enough to have a Mac as a work station, install mac vim. It's great.
Make is complicated enough so that you will never really master it. Just learn enough to compile and link your program. You can always learn more if you need it.
Version control is an interesting question... I use RCS for small stuff. Like vi, it is on every Unix machine. For really big projects, I use subversion, but like editors, most people use whatever they learned first. Git people will say its the only one to use, etc.
Command line debuggers are a pain, which is a main selling point for Xcode. I've used gdb, but I don't remember it as a pleasant experience. Its been so long since I used it, I can't even remember how to start it up. There must be better debuggers by now. Try google.
Bottom line, all the things you mentioned are big topics. You need to take realistic bites of each and not get tangled in the weeds. It can take years to master them all.
Finally, I'd stay as far away from C++ as possible! Objective C is much better. Personal prejudice!
This is not meant to be inflammatory or anything like that, but I am in the midst of learning C, and (think) I have a good handle on most of the basics. I've done all of the various book exercises: primes generators, Fibonacci generators, string manipulation, yadda yadda, but none of this is cool.
What is the "bridge" between command line programs and something -cool-? I've heard of various games being written in C, but how?
Forgive my exasperation, but it feels like I've been learning lots but can still only do relatively little. Thanks for any insight on what to do with C.
Relevant information: OS X leopard, PHP and web development experience (which is so great because projects are immediately in a context where you recognize how they can be powerful)
C is the concrete and the steel of modern tech
There was a time when almost everything was written in C, or in something much worse.
These days, many of the advanced languages and systems are actually implemented in C or C++, and then those things implement more systems. It is standing on the shoulders of giants, as the expression goes. Almost every OS kernel, browser, and heavy-duty-web-server is written in C/C++.
So sure, you don't see the steel in the high rise, you see the beautiful interior furnishings and the sleek glass windows. You don't want a steel or concrete desk, and if you did, it would be too expensive to build for you.
Back to your GUI question: your first C graphics program should probably use the original X Window System directly. Don't spend too much time there, but then move on to one of the more advanced Widget toolkits such as GTK+ or (the C++) Qt. Be sure to investigate your OS X system, as it has one of the most advanced of them all.
I try love to write things in Ruby these days, but I happen to know there are over 100,000 200,000 lines of C code implementing that cool Ruby language system. :-)
Summary
Ok, this post got really big, so here's a quick summary before you read it: to program GUIs, there are a number of good C/C++ libraries (for example, QT). What most people do, on Windows systems at least, is to use a .NET language (like C#) when they want GUIs, and C/C++ when they want more control/speed. It's also very common to use both in combination, i.e. make a GUI in C# and speed-critical parts in C.
I still encourage you to read the longer answer, it contains a lot more information on your options.
Longer answer
I'll start with the big question, then answer (as best I can) your specific question about creating a GUI. I think you're kind of suffering from the fact that C is used to teach programming, and it's much easier to do so only using command line programs (after all, they're much simpler to write). This doesn't mean that C can't do all of the stuff you want, like GUIs specifically. It does. I don't think there's any type of software that hasn't been done in C, usually before it was done in other languages.
All right, some answers:
Is C Useful?
C, and its very close relative C++, are responsible for a huge portion of the world's code. I don't know if more code is written in C than any other language, but I'm guessing it's not far off.
Most of the really important programs you use are actually written in C/C++. Just for one example, Windows.
Where is C used today?
C/C++ are still used a lot. They're especially useful for developing low-level stuff (i.e. stuff like Operating Systems, which need a lot of speed, a lot of ability to control exactly what your code does, etc.).
But don't think it's all low level for C programmers. Even today, with many other languages available (which are arguably much better, and certainly much easier to program), C is still used to create practically everything. GUI applications, which you specifically asked about, are very often made with C, even though nowadays, lots of people are switching to other languages. Note I say switching: C used to be the standard language for writing, well, everything, really.
How do I develop GUIs with C
Alright, you specifically wanted to know how to create a GUI with C (I'm hoping C++ is ok too).
First of all, it depends on a number of factors:
What Operating System are you writing for? (Windows, Mac, and Linux are the most common).
Do you want the GUI to work on other systems as well?
The most common case is writing software to work on Windows. In that case, the "natural" solution is to write things that work with the Win32 API. That's basically the library that "comes" with Windows, letting you do any GUI work you want to do.
The big problem with this is, it's kinda hard. As in, a lot hard. This is the reason most people don't do that kind of work anymore.
So what are your other options?
The most natural is going with what's called a .NET language. Those are a bunch of languages, together with libraries, that Microsoft created. They're probably the easiest way to get a GUI on Windows. The problem is, you can't really use them from C (since it's not a .NET language).
Assuming you want to stay in C/C++ land, you can use some kind of library which makes working with the Windows API easier (since it hides all the ugly details):
One of the most common is what's called MFC (Microsoft Foundation Classes), which are a bunch of C++ classes which make it "easier" to create Windows stuff. Unfortunately, this library is very old, and is really not that easy to use.
The other way to go if you want to program in C++ is to use some kind of third-party library. This is a library that someone other than Microsoft created, which makes it easier to create a GUI.
Another option is to create only the GUI part of your software in a .NET language, and use C/C++ for the other parts (or use the .NET language to do almost everything, and use C/C++ only when you really need it, for example when you need things to go really fast). This is a very popular option.
The advantage of a third party library is that, if you pick the right one, you can use the same code to create a GUI for all the Operating Systems at the same time.
I think the most famous of these libraries is QT, and also WxWidgets, but there are a bunch of other ones. I would personally pick QT since it seems to get the most fame, but I haven't worked with either.
Every major operating system has all of its low-level libraries implemented in C. Mac OS X is a Unix-like system under the hood, which is a wonderful world if you're a C programmer.
Check out The Art of Unix Programming for some great ideas.
As for GUI stuff, you'll probably want to use X11. There is plenty of good documentation out there -- most Unix programming stuff and most deep system-level stuff just assumes you're working in C, since that's what everybody uses for it.
Well, that depends. If you want to build desktop applications, a multiplatform GUI library whose main language is C is GTK+:
http://www.gtk.org/
For games, check out SDL:
http://www.libsdl.org/
Which provides you with thinks like direct input from keyboard, 2D graphics, some audio and even threads and stuff like that. It can also open an OpenGL context if you want to get into the 3D world (however it's hard to do it in raw OpenGl). Did I mention that SDL is multiplatform?
However the real strength of C is in systems programming. For desktop applications/games maybe you are best suited with C++. Now that you have command of C, learning the basic C++ should be easy ;).
Cool stuff do with C?
Operating Systems, device drivers, and python modules for starters.
Games typically will use C++ if they're C-Based, in my experience / what I've seen.
There are many libraries for C under Unix, such as X lib, which accesses X11.
If you wanted to get into robotics you may find C to be very useful, as you will have to write low-level code with very small memory footprints, so even C++ may not be the best choice.
C and C++ are very good at writing small, fast code, but OOP is not always the best choice, so at times you will find that C is a better choice, for example if you are writing a compiler or OS.
Sure there are some impressive programs made in C !
GNOME for example, arguably the most used desktop environment used in modern unix systems is written in C (the major parts at least) and is mostly based on GTK+ gui toolkit, itself done in C.
For game, OpenGL is a C api and is the standard for 3D graphic programming in multi-platform development (not uniquely microsoft platform), and Quake 3, which the engine, Id Tech 3, is available in GPL, is also writen in C. There also is many 2D games written using SDL library.
SDL is a good library for graphics and sound, and I've seen some cool stuff done with it. If you do it in C, it'll take longer to make, but from a performance point of view, it'll be much better.
If your idea of cool is GUI apps and you want to write native GUI apps on the Mac, you'll want to look at
Carbon. This is the official C API into the Mac GUI and OS. They keep threatening to kill it, but it survives.
Personally I think GUI apps are a very narrow definition of cool. What I think is cool is implementing parallelized math algorithms using opencl.
GTK-server is REALLY easy to get started with, in C or any other language. Just click that link.
For a "cool" application that goes beyond simple GUI's, check out the OpenCV computer vision library. It provides fast real-time image processing and face recognition.
Now you can access a webcam and start writing real-time computer vision games. For applications like these that are processor intensive, C is the ideal choice.
Last I checked more Open Source projects are started in C than in any other language.
The fact that C is used by so many large and successful projects doesn't particularly make it "good". The reason C is so commonly used is because of a few factors, it's been around a long time, it's fast, it lets you access both low level and high level interfaces as needed, and it's better than the other old languages (FORTRAN etc). The "cool" thing about C is that you can make it do absolutely anything: inject itself into the kernel and add some new features or bug fixes that you couldn't convince Microsoft to do, etc.
Yes, C can be and is easily used for things beyond the command line, but it's extremely dangerous due to pointers... Not to mention development in other more modern languages is faster (and safer) by magnitudes. I never use C unless it's the last resort, ie: need to implement something low level or needs that extra performance.
By the way, when I say C, I really mean C++. I'd never choose C over C++ unless I was forced to.
Have you ever obfuscated your code before? Are there ever legitimate reasons to do so?
I have obfuscated my JavaScript. It made it smaller, thus reducing download times. In addition, since the code is handed to the client, my company didn't want them to be able to read it.
Yes, to make it harder to reverse engineer.
To ensure a job for life, of course (kidding).
This is pretty hilarious and educational: How to Write Unmaintanable Code.
It's called "Job Security". This is also the reason to use Perl -- no need to do obfuscation as separate task, hence higher productivity, without loss of job security.
Call it "security through obsfuscability" if you will.
I don't believe making reverse engineering harder is a valid reason.
A good reason to obfuscate your code is to reduce the compiled footprint. For instance, J2ME appliactions need to be as small as possible. If you run you app through an obfuscator (and optimiser) then you can reduce the jar from a couple of Mb to a few hundred Kb.
The other point, nestled above, is that most obfuscators are also optimisers which can improve your application's performance.
Isn't this also used as security through obscurity? When your source code is publically available (javascript etc) you might want to at least it somewhat harder to understand what is actually occuring on the client side.
Security is always full of compromises. but i think that security by obscurity is one of the least effective methods.
I believe all TV cable boxes will have the java code obfuscated. This does make things harder to hack, and since the cable boxes will be in your home, they are theoretically hackable.
I'm not sure how much it will matter since the cable card will still control signal encryption and gets its authorization straight from the video source rather than the java code guide or java apps, but they are pretty dedicated to the concept.
By the way, it is not easy to trace exceptions thrown from an obfuscated stack! I actually memorized at one point that aH meant "Null Pointer Exception" for a particular build.
I remember creating a Windows Service for Online Backup application that was built in .NET. I could easily use either Visual Studio or tools like .NET Reflector to see the classes and the source code inside it.
I created a new Visual Studio Test application and added the Windows Service reference to it. Double clicked on the reference and I can see all the classes, namespaces everything (not the source code though). Anybody can figure out the internal working of your modules by looking at the class names. In my case, one such class was FTPHandler that clearly tells where the backups are going.
.NET Reflector goes beyond that by showing the actual code. It even has an option to Export the whole project so you get a VS project with all the classes and source code similar to what the developer had.
I think it makes sense to obfuscate, to make it atleast harder if not impossible for someone to disassemble. Also I think it makes sense for products involving large customer base where you do not want your competitors to know much about your products.
Looking at some of the code I wrote for my disk driver project makes me question what it means to be obfuscated.
((int8_t (*)( int32_t, void * )) hdd->_ctrl)( DISK_CMD_REQUEST, (void *) dr );
Or is that just system programming in C? Or should that line be written differently? Questions...
Yes and no, I haven't delivered apps with a tool that was easy decompilable.
I did run something like obfuscators for old Basic and UCSD Pascal interpreters, but that was for a different reason, optimizing run time.
If I am delivering Java Swing apps to clients, I always obfuscate the class files before distribution.
You can never be too careful - I once pointed a decent Java decompiler (I used the JD Java Decompiler - http://www.djjavadecompiler.com/ ) at my class files and was rewarded with an almost perfect reproduction of the original code. That was rather unnerving, so I started obfuscating my production code ever since. I use Klassmaster myself (http://www.zelix.com/klassmaster/)
I obfuscated code of my Android applications mostly. I used ProGuard tool to obfuscate the code.
When I worked on the C# project, our team used the ArmDot. It's licensing and obfuscation system.
Modern obfuscators are used not only to make hacking process difficult. They are able to protect programs and games from cheating, check licenses/keys and even optimize code.
But I don't think it is necessary to use obfuscator in every project.
It's most commonly done when you need to provide something in source (usually due to the environment it's being built in, such as systems without shared libraries, especially if you as the seller don't have the exact system being build for), but you don't want the person you're giving it to to be able to modify or extend it significantly (or at all).
This used to be far more common than today. It also led to the (defunct?) Obfuscated C Contest.
A legal (though arguably not "legitimate") use might be to release "source" for an app you're linking with GPL code in obfuscated fashion. It's source, it can be modified, it's just very hard. That would be a more extreme version of releasing it without comments, or releasing with all whitespace trimmed, or (and this would be pushing the legal grounds probably) releasing assembler source generated from C (and perhaps hand-tweaked so you can say it's not just intermediate code).