(11-30-2014, 06:48 PM)dopamine Wrote: What you explained is .NET and Java. Please provide more proof. If this is the case then .NET and Java can also be counted as scripting languages but then this whole division of languages doesn't make any sense.

(11-30-2014, 06:48 PM)dopamine Wrote: What does Assembly have to do with knowing how every software works? I haven't looked at disassembly of php perl or python so I can't know how they work inside I just know that its a interpreter because that is the only way I know how to make such a thing like python or php.

(11-30-2014, 06:58 PM)Psycho_Coder Wrote: Haha I wonder why this Mr dopamine is still here and has not been banned. He thinks of himself as if he is the pioneer of programming and even lecturing me on HC about what I should work and what I shouldn't work.

This guy takes himself as if he is among the great living programming minds of the 21st century. Only he is right and everyone else is wrong.

This guy talks a lot about being Awesome and a genius and takes for granted that others are script kiddies. But imho he is the biggest SKID around this place now. Who just signed up on twitter and desperately needs followers to follow him on twitter and therefore he posts his twitter profile link with his every posts. I guess that already proves what I wanted to prove.

(11-30-2014, 07:05 PM)The Toilet Paper King Wrote: I have never been a .NET developer, and know nothing about how the language works. Java however... is both 'compiled' to a standalone binary compatible with its VM and 'interpreted' at run time. This is contrary to Python in that Python is still converted to bytecode which is run on a VM and interpreted by that VM, however there is no intermediary file or step between that process. If you say "put whatever", it will convert that python statement to bytecode that the VM understands, and then the VM will run it on the hardware by converting it to an opcode/opcodes.

So java will 'compile' it to byte code, where as python will convert it to byte code - but both languages are producing byte code that is then 'interpreted' by the VM which converts it to the machine language.

There is no perfect definition as they use hybrid technologies - but this is a far more accurate than stating "it's because they are interpreted" or 'must be translated to byte code'. Both of those languages are interpreted before being run on the machine however.

(11-30-2014, 07:05 PM)The Toilet Paper King Wrote: Knowledge of assembly requires knowledge of how the processor works. Knowledge of how the processor works should include knowledge of how compilation works. If you don't know how things are compiled i cant imaging you know how the processor works, and if you dont know how the processor works i cant imagine you understanding how to code in assembly or machine language.

(11-30-2014, 07:06 PM)dopamine Wrote: Oh hey Psycho_Lamer. I am a better coder than you. I don't even hack so its impossible for me to be a skid.

(11-30-2014, 07:11 PM)Blunts Wrote: Wouldn't quite take it that far bud, on some real shit Psycho is most likely one of the best coders here and I have seen years of his sources lol
I have actually watched him progress like mad since then as well.
Yeah thats right I stalk you lolol

(11-30-2014, 07:12 PM)dopamine Wrote: That's really great. I am sure x86/64 Ring3 Rootkits are an easy topic for him.

(11-30-2014, 07:15 PM)Blunts Wrote: You are trying way to fucking hard haha cutest shit I have ever seen.
The difference between me and you is you certainly give a fuck what people think.

(11-30-2014, 07:06 PM)dopamine Wrote: LOL YOU WHAT? Assembly especially mASM and FASM are way easier than you think.

I don't know how processor works(or maybe I do but I don't know that I do???). I don't need to know how C code gets translated to ASM. I have a compiler for C/C++ and an Assembler for ASM. No need to reinvent the wheel.

I am not saying I am really good at coding in masm/fasm, but I know enough to write small things such as the winsock client example and to debug my C/C++ code.

(11-30-2014, 07:18 PM)dopamine Wrote: I am not trying hard. A ring3 rootkit is something I first coded back when I was in high school. I claimed I am a better coder than him simply because he was an asshole on HC, now you say he is better than me.. I bring up topics you don't understand with hope that maybe he does.

Yeah, you can't code a ring3 rootkit in python.

(11-30-2014, 07:19 PM)The Toilet Paper King Wrote: I've never had an interest in Assembly, but i know how assembly works and what it is. It is a direct translation of machine code. push/pop/jmp/mov/etc all directly relate to a specific line of machine code. You can take a line of ASM and convert it by hand, to machine code if you know the corresponding values. all it does is make things easier to remember, so you use mov instead of 01001000 (for example).

So telling me, that you dont know how the processor works - makes me wonder how you could possibly understand how to develop applications for it at that level. but ya never know, MAYBE its possible.

But its statements like "I don't need to know how C code gets translated to ASM." that make me think you dont really have a clue.

And yes, I have written code in machine language (1's and 0's) for a uni course. so while I might not know ASM - I do understand the concepts at that level.

(11-30-2014, 06:58 PM)Psycho_Coder Wrote: Haha I wonder why this Mr dopamine is still here and has not been banned. He thinks of himself as if he is the pioneer of programming and even lecturing me on HC about what I should work and what I shouldn't work.

This guy takes himself as if he is among the great living programming minds of the 21st century. Only he is right and everyone else is wrong.

This guy talks a lot about being Awesome and a genius and takes for granted that others are script kiddies. But imho he is the biggest SKID around this place now. Who just signed up on twitter and desperately needs followers to follow him on twitter and therefore he posts his twitter profile link with his every posts. I guess that already proves what I wanted to prove.