Going to need some clarification on how that's the case.
That said, I don't know of any webassembly decompilers, although I guess they must exist by this point. But also historically decompilers have been imperfect as some of the structure of the code is lost in the compilation process and has to be inferred, sometimes incorrectly, by the decompiler. Compare to a minifier where all you lose is the variable names, comments, and possibly helpful whitespace. All of the structure of the code is still there and there are no heuristics necessary to recreate something that resembles the original source.
I haven't written any productive WebAssembly but I play Capture The Flag competitions, and it's become frequent for a wasm reverse engineering challenge to be thrown in. The tools are good enough to make that tractable, even for non-experts in wasm like me.
It helps a little that it's a stack-based rather than register-based VM. Usually more of the intent of code is preserved that way. It's like reversing a JVM class, rather than like reversing a native binary.
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffeescript/wiki/List-of-langu...
Wasm was effectively an extension of asm.js. It makes the experience of compile-to-web better, but it isn't much more opaque than other projects.
ex:
end $label121
get_local $var7
get_local $var9
call $func3444
get_local $var7
call $func1500 func1500(func3444(var7, var9), var7)
gw(kl(s,i),s)One practical factor: I often debug wasm files by compiling them to JS first.
At least wasm has structured control flow, which helps a lot. I wish wasm had even more readability features, personally.
I see nothing that states that is the case.
https://medium.com/@pnfsoftware/reverse-engineering-webassem...