>
> GWT first optimizes the Java AST, then converts it into a JavaScript AST
> and optimizes it as well.
>
I had a sneaking suspicion the obfuscation might not be working off
human-readable JS. Neat.
Once that is done the actual obfuscation is just a simple renaming as far
> as I know.
>
>
> On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:36:19 AM UTC+2, Jens wrote:
>>
>> GWT first optimizes the Java AST, then converts it into a JavaScript AST
>> and optimizes it as well. Once that is done the actual obfuscation is just
>> a simple renaming as far as I know.
>>
>
> Once the optimization (aka
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 11:36:19 AM UTC+2, Jens wrote:
>
> GWT first optimizes the Java AST, then converts it into a JavaScript AST
> and optimizes it as well. Once that is done the actual obfuscation is just
> a simple renaming as far as I know.
>
Once the optimization (aka
GWT first optimizes the Java AST, then converts it into a JavaScript AST
and optimizes it as well. Once that is done the actual obfuscation is just
a simple renaming as far as I know. Its also kind of worthless doing such a
compression as you have mentioned because that is exactly what GZIP
I've been vaguely aware of GWT and what it does for a few years, but
learning Java is still on my todo list so I haven't yet explored GWT in too
much depth.
While recently poking around in my browser devtools as I tried to figure
out how a particular webapp worked I noticed some obfuscated
