oot VS FStar

https://github.com/zeldaret/oot 100% Ocarina of Time is fully decomped, surprised we haven't seen any developments on Mario here. Also liboot is possible.

Here's the page from the Zelda "Reverse Engineer" GitHub wiki: https://github.com/zeldaret/oot/wiki/Getting-Started

well it is possible to crack a game without the source. in fact, it's possible to decompile source from the binary itself. This has been done with Mario64 and ocarina of time.

That being said, there is a lot of documentation out there on Ocarina of Time specifically. There's even a work-in-progress decompilation. You're going to have to learn a lot to get to the level where you can do the stuff you're wanting to do, but that's part of why you have to try to start smaller. You can even work on Ocarina of Time still, but start by picking a concrete goal and trying to hack it into the game. Build a tool from scratch that replaces text in the game, for example.

Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time were only just decompiled within the last couple of years. Jak and Daxter 1 was decompiled a few months ago. GTA 3 and Vice City have nearly finished decompilations, but TakeTwo took legal action against the developers before they put the finishing touches.

That said, I did my research before talking about source ports made from restoring the (nearly) original code using the compiled data and symbols). That's how SM64 and OoT (as well as other Zeldas in progress) were/are decompiled.

I've watched the video and I'm still convinced it provides false information. What is my source? The official OoT decompilation project: https://github.com/zeldaret/oot

I don't think something that specific exists. There are a very large number of formal methods tools, each with different specialties / domains.

For verification with proof assistants, [Software Foundations](https://softwarefoundations.cis.upenn.edu/) and [Concrete Semantics](http://concrete-semantics.org/) are both solid.

For verification via model checking, you can check out [Learn TLA+](https://learntla.com/), and the more theoretical [Specifying Systems](https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/book-02-08-08.pdf).

For more theory, check out [Formal Reasoning About Programs](http://adam.chlipala.net/frap/).

And for general projects look at [F*](https://www.fstar-lang.org/) and [Dafny](https://dafny.org/).

Don't get me wrong, there are times when Microsoft got it right the first time that was technically far superior to their competitors. Windows IOCP was theoretically capable of doing C10K as far back in 1994-95 when there wasn't any hardware support yet and UNIX world was bickering over how to do asynchronous I/O. Years later POSIX came up with select which was a shoddy little shit in comparison. Linux caved in finally only as recently as 2019 and implemented io_uring. Microsoft research has contributed some very interesting things to computer science like Z3 SAT solver and in collaboration with INRIA made languages like F* and Low* for formal specification and verification. But all this dwarfs in comparison to all the harm they did.

Most of the proof assistants out there: Lean, Coq, Dafny, Isabelle, F*, Idris 2, and Agda. And the main concepts are dependent types, Homotopy Type Theory AKA HoTT, and Category Theory. Warning: HoTT and Category Theory are really dense, you're going to really need to research them.

F* is a dependently typed language that can be transpiled to idiomatic C via the KReMLin compiler. It’s very ML-ish to write and you can leave out some proofs. It also has the benefit of being used to write a formally verified TLS implementation that’s in wide use throughout industry.

As I said, dependent types attempt to solve this problem. F* is a language where you can express complex logic as a type. The catch is, these types are checked by an SMT solver. If the solver can satisfy the type checking, then great, and you move on. If it can’t, you have no idea why, and either have to guess or manually write the proof anyway. Contrast this with Standard ML which has a proof of the soundness of its type system.

So kind of like F*? https://www.fstar-lang.org/

F*

Nevermind that academia has come up with far safer ways to do a few things but social norms & inertia prevent their wider adoption (well okay, it also has a barrier to entry in the education required to use it but I don't think someone with the knowledge to meaningfully contribute to an OS kernel can be considered uneducated nor unable to learn).

Maybe that's a little off topic here, but if you like fixing bugs, i suspect you might also enjoy showing that there are no bugs at all. Check out languages like F* https://www.fstar-lang.org/ It's a proof-oriented programming language. You can use it to write code that has no bugs at all. And you once you're done, can convert F* to C or other languages.