Ranter
Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
![](/static/devrant/img/pipeless-devrant-banner-white.png)
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
Comments
-
@lknk I thought so. Another thing I've been curious to try but haven't had a chance to do so, is a jsfucked script smaller if you use gzip compression? Also, what's the performance penalty? Any ideas?
-
Pls don't. There is a reason nobody does this. It's called performance. Just imagine the output of jsfuck in plain c. malloc over malloc.
-
@nitwhiz Then the end user needs to upgrade (typical developers' mentality these days)
-
@24th-Dragon Very well said. No in my case it's not. I'm just thinking about making it slightly harder to debug the JavaScript using the browser
-
@FuckJava Don't do it. I have helped several people fix JavaScript bugs by debugging it myself. If you make it harder to debug for an end-user, you also make it harder on yourself.
-
Pickman6585yWait. Somebody created a tool to make javascript less readable? Isn't it a bit overkill?
-
@Fast-Nop But Firefox (and probably that spyware Chrome, I wouldn't know) prettifies it with a single click.
-
grosten14495y@FuckJava So what? I wouldn’t make it look bad just for the sake of making it look bad.
-
@FuckJava if the code is understandable despite the nonsense variable names, then it is so simple that it isn't worth protecting anyway.
And otherwise, obfuscating doesn't protect from reverse engineering valuable stuff either.
Related Rants
Would you use jsfuck for to make it a little harder on people to read the scripts?
question
jsfuck
javascript
js
obfuscation