我已经得到了大约 25通过 Proguard 后，我的应用程序的大小改进了 %。 这主要与 Jar 文件更好的 Zip 压缩以及对类合并和预验证的全面支持有关。
Proguard is a better product; especially if you take the time to go through the settings for J2ME.
Specifically for J2ME there is a far better (commercial) product called mBooster
I've been getting around 25% improvement in size on my application after its been through Proguard. This is mainly to do with the better Zip compression on the Jar file and comprehensive support for class merging and preverification.
My opinion is - ProGuard is better. Output is smaller a bit. Optimizing is better and much faster.
Decompiling is simple in both cases. Well, i mean, if u know Java well and really know business-logic of what you're decompiling, there is no problem to get it back to sources from obfuscated classes.
发布评论
评论（3）
我的项目的结果。
所以，我建议使用 ProGuard - 但配置和 ant 集成绝对可以改进。
Results for my project.
So, I'd advise ProGuard - but configuration and ant integration could definitely be improved.
Proguard是一个更好的产品； 特别是如果您花时间检查 J2ME 的设置。
专门针对 J2ME，有一个更好的（商业）产品，名为 mBooster
我已经得到了大约 25通过 Proguard 后，我的应用程序的大小改进了 %。 这主要与 Jar 文件更好的 Zip 压缩以及对类合并和预验证的全面支持有关。
Proguard is a better product; especially if you take the time to go through the settings for J2ME.
Specifically for J2ME there is a far better (commercial) product called mBooster
I've been getting around 25% improvement in size on my application after its been through Proguard. This is mainly to do with the better Zip compression on the Jar file and comprehensive support for class merging and preverification.
我的意见是 - ProGuard 更好。 输出小了一点。 优化效果更好、更快。
在这两种情况下反编译都很简单。 嗯，我的意思是，如果您很了解 Java 并且真正了解您正在反编译的内容的业务逻辑，那么从混淆的类中将其返回到源代码是没有问题的。
所以，我的观点是 ProGuard 更好。
My opinion is - ProGuard is better. Output is smaller a bit. Optimizing is better and much faster.
Decompiling is simple in both cases. Well, i mean, if u know Java well and really know business-logic of what you're decompiling, there is no problem to get it back to sources from obfuscated classes.
So, my opinion is ProGuard is better.