[LEAKED] CoGenius source.

I checked this and I want to die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XMasterrrr But as this source is screwed, what to do with it? lol well it's nice release, maybe a tutorial will make it easier :P J/K

It looks like it was just de-compiled ,really cant do anything with it.

I'm laughing so hard.

#Edit
LOL @ the packethandler, the fuck? Overuse of try/catches AND goto.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I don't have a username I'm laughing so hard. #Edit LOL @ the packethandler, the fuck? Overuse of try/catches AND goto.

Its reflected, thats not what the source code will actually look like.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Its reflected, thats not what the source code will actually look like.

True at that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by I don't have a username I'm laughing so hard. #Edit LOL @ the packethandler, the fuck? Overuse of try/catches AND goto.

Ever seen an actual C++ source make heavy use of goto? It'll make your head spin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Its reflected, thats not what the source code will actually look like.

Correct.

But since when does reflection add try/catch blocks?:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by _DreadNought_ Correct. But since when does reflection add try/catch blocks?:rolleyes:

Correct.

But since when does what i said imply that it does? :rolleyes:

The source code wont look like that, thats not to say that none of the code is correct however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Correct. But since when does what i said imply that it does? :rolleyes: The source code wont look like that, thats not to say that none of the code is correct however.

It was implied.

And of course not, the way the code functions and does its jaz is the same, but yes, it would look totally different.

IE: To us his code looks like:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

And to him:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Quote:

Originally Posted by _DreadNought_ It was implied. And of course not, the way the code functions and does its jaz is the same, but yes, it would look totally different. IE: To us his code looks like: [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...] And to him: [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...]

Don't know about you, but his code looks like [Only registered and activated users can see links. Click Here To Register...] to me. :mofo:

@Dread

Im fairly certain his code looks like the first picture, even if he thinks it looks like the second, even as source code, considering he self obfuscates his code and uses things like 16 nested loops based on strings for map travel etc.

Yes, he "self-obfuscates" his code "on purpose".

That`d be O(n^16), considering a case where n is 15, this is worse than backtracking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KraHen That`d be O(n^16), considering a case where n is 15, this is worse than backtracking.

Its not a joke either, he defended it saying that it takes less than 1 second to calculate a path, if anything such as this takes more than like 10ms then your doing it wrong imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korvacs Its not a joke either, he defended it saying that it takes less than 1 second to calculate a path, if anything such as this takes more than like 10ms then your doing it wrong imo.

Seeing the worst case complexity of a standard A* implementation I find this extremely sad.