Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8457333
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 10, 20262026-06-10T12:47:07+00:00 2026-06-10T12:47:07+00:00

Now, I know that… Anything can be reverse engineered, given enough time and resources.

  • 0

Now, I know that…

Anything can be reverse engineered, given enough time and resources.

However, would compiling your Java code to native code with a tool like GCJ make it more difficult to decompile? I mean, given a few minutes, I can decompile a .jar using JD-GUI, and it is relatively accurate. Most of the “Java to EXE” converters are just .exe launchers for the JVM, and while there are many benefits to the JVM, I have been led to believe that security of the source code is not one of them.

Bottom line: Can you use something like GCJ to compile your Java source (or .class) files to native machine code, and if so, will that protect it from decompiling?

EDIT: Ideally, it would be something more than just obfuscation. The specific project is a commercial game, so what we are looking for is a way to make it more difficult to get to the source code to begin with, not just understand it. Also, I’m not sure that Steam accepts .jars, and we are planning on submitting it to the new Green Light project.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-10T12:47:08+00:00Added an answer on June 10, 2026 at 12:47 pm

    Technically, yes. Using something like GCJ will make it harder to decompile, however keep in mind that you are losing some major benefits of using Java if you do this. Namely, you lose the ability to write cross-platform applications.

    You could use an obfuscator to make the code harder to decompile AND still keep the benefits of using Java.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Now while I know that you can not perform inheritance like you would in
I know that using friends_work_history permission, we can access friend's work history. Now, I
Now that I know I can no longer communicate with Twitter mashups out there,
After making some research, I now know that I can launch an iphone app
Now I know that you can use OOP and MVC to organize, but that
Now I know that the UITableViewCell by default have a imageView however I tried
Language Integrated Query. Now I know that the acronyms are. I have seen C#
So I know now that the debug assemblies have been intentionally left out of
I know that .NET assembly is self-descriptive because of the metadata. Now suppose I
I know that finish() returns your activity back to your previous activity. Now I

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.