Hacker News Reader

Comment by kurisufag | Hacker News Reader

For reference, I downloaded a cracked copy off TPB (or some such place) when I was in high school for reversing video games, and I've never seen a legitimate reason to upgrade or get a real license.

It's really a testament to the robustness of the software.

View on HN

The people who worked on IDA should be teaching classes on development. I do not think I have ever encountered a single bug in my usage (obviously they exist as with almost any system of moderate complexity). It's just a rock solid application.

Their debugger used to be pretty buggy, just after the 5.0 or 5.1 release I'd crash it on a regular basis. More recent versions have improved this though and they offer some really slick features in the debugger than other tools can't even do.

I forget what version I started with, but I believe it was after 6.

Structure editor sometimes bugs out and removes all items from the view, together with comments that serve as help text. The window is completely empty.

Also this Python detection tool that needs to be executed prior the first run didn't support python 3.10 at some point -- they've did version detection based on the filename that detected 3.10 as 3.1 (windows9-style version detection). Not sure what's the case with recent IDA versions, because I'm using Ghidra since a long time now.

But overall I agree, I would never suggest IDA when being asked about an example of a buggy software.

Those are just mere test. You must use IDA to RE itself to fix those bugs. Then you have truly earned the right to use IDA bug free. ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com