Talk:Source code

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] B

Why there is the attribute "human-readable" for the programming language in the definition? Is there some programming language which is not "human readable"? Faller 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DevCDs and non-free sourcecode

The section DevCDs and non-free sourcecode sounds like an ad. I'm a developer and I've never heard of the term "DevCD," and the only mention of an example is a company I've never heard of producing a game I'm never heard of. I'm removing this section. Drano 07:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Only a samll idea: Although it is not incorrect in the sense of the definition, I'd think we have better image examples of source code than HTML?? What about showing some real interesting stuff? Extract from Linux or FireFox (i.e. sth. many people have heard of) ? I think, that would be cooler. :-) Madmaxx 15:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A

Well, hmm. Several issues are raised by the current version of this page:

  • Software can be written in a mixture of programming languages,
  • Program execution doesn't necessarily require compilation (interpreted languages, etc.),
  • An assembler doesn't turn object code into machine code, it turns assembly code into object code. The latter step (object code to machine code) is typically handled by a linker,
  • Machine language can be turned back into source code. This is called disassembly.

However, many (most?) interpreted languages compile the code anyways into either a byte code or native code. Smalltalk does this.

The reusability section should talk about maintainability. And it should be noted that people who believe in maintainability (eg, Smalltalk people) believe this to be the primary use of source code. Perhaps a quote to Donald Knuth saying as much is in order that needs to be specified. test

I've been working on rewriting some of this article, especially the first few paragraphs in the current version. Could some of the stuff about mnemonics and reusability be removed, or at least shortened a bit? A lot of this is covered in better detail in the programming language article, and its related pages, and I'd hate to duplicate effort that would be better spent on other articles more suited to these topics. Seems to me that the source code article would be better suited to discussing topics specifically related to source code, such as the legal issues surrounding it, and a discussion of how a bunch of source code becomes a running program, and not go into general programming constructs and concepts. Anyone else have ideas? -- Wapcaplet

Yeah, this page is pretty horrendous, right now. The opening paragraphs are jarringly bad. "DevCDs" are quite tangential to the core idea of source code of a computer program, yet are the first major heading. Organization is given short shrift. Licensing and Legal issues are decent, except the latter doesn't cover a very interesting disctinction and debate between software patents vs. software copyright. Quality, as well, is important, but also core to the idea of source code. Every time I think of this article I can't help but thing of the quote, "Nuke it from orbit: it's the only way to be sure." :( -- jsled 01:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Password systems

Maybe I missed the point, but to me the "Password systems" section seems as if it doesn't belong here. It's not refered to from any other part of the text (at least I haven't noticed) and isn't really about source code either. zub 22:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC);

Ok, some unregistered user took care of that. :-) zub 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HL2

Maybe something should be mentioned about the Half-Life 2 source code leak?
— ßottesiηi Tell me what's up 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly picture

Why is there such an ugly picture up front? Why not show something nice, without a black background? A code snippet lifted from a real project would be nice. 82.139.85.48 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm, again, why are you against a black background? ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

I have changed the picture to some java source I had lying around. People have asked for something from a well known project, but I thought, in this limited space, I would add something which is self contained. Those with limited or no programming experience may comprehend what the source is doing.

Sorry for 4 saves in a row... Changed the uploaded picture for a better aspect ratio.

Christiancatchpole 04:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Comments

I noticed that someone spotted my incorrect JavaDoc comments... :) The original method could process 0-9, but I shortened it for Wikipedia.. I forgot to change the JavaDoc.. oops.

Christiancatchpole 04:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] software anomalies

Hello, my addition to the "see also"-link: Anomaly_in_software was removed on 24th December.

Please rethink, because I think this would be appropriate, reason: anomalies/bugs are also often in sourcecode besides being in docs and somewhere else. I give in the article different examples like: "data flow anomaly" and "control flow anomaly". I would appreciate any discussion on the matter. Thx, ----Erkan Yilmaz (evaluate me!, discussion) 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hyphenation

Shouldn't source code be hyphenated as "source-code"? SharkD 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source is not just source code

You write correctly in the article why we name it code, but you doesn't mention why it is source:
The sources of a software consist of not only code files but other files like images, string resources, version data etc.
The source in that sense is such a file which cannot be re-created from the other sources in the process of building the softvare.
An assembly file could be the source code if it is not generated from another file in the course of building or it could be a transient file if it generated from a C file respectively.


Faller 11:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need further explaining

Including differences with binary code (example with software you can download binary code(see http://xml.apache.org/xindice/download.cgi)) And new wiki entries for Binary Code (software builds), and explaining how to build source code from binary code —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.242.34 (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite

Since there's opposition to my rewrite from Derek farn, I'll give a fuller explanation for the parts.

  • "In computer science, source.." : 1) too broad. Source falls under software engineering/programming and programming language design. Compsci is a big field, and many of its subfields are irrelevant to source. 2) This sounds like a disambig page, doesn't follow style, and becomes obvious/redundant in the same sentence when programming languages are mentioned.
  • "(commonly just source or code)" : "Robert Jones (also 'Rob Jones' or 'Bob Jones')" - obvious and unnecessary
  • "any sequence of statements and/or declarations" : 1) Too technical. A statement is something people say, a declaration is when someone says it with conviction (or something like that). Wikipedia isn't a reference, and we shouldn't expect average people to know definitions more advanced than the article they're learning from. 2) Incidental. The important thing about source code is that it's the original, non-compiled form of the program.[1][2] Then we talk about why we need it (human readable, etc.), and what it's used for (it gets compiled.)
  • 'Source tree' and 'code base' redirecting here is not sufficient reason to give those subjects much consideration in the lead. They don't even need to be in the lead, "working with and handling source code" can have its own section.

Anyway, that's a start. Other problems are the casual tone, the redundancy, the lack of citations (I listed these in my edit comment). Since I don't know what the objections to my version are, I can't really give more detail. Now that I've given some info, I'll revert, and wait for Derek farn to respond. –MT 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a broad introduction, just what a reader new to the article would appreciate. Is the HTML of a web page source code (some people do not consider it to be a computer language)? Derek farn (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not obvious that a two would phrase can be split into single word forms, there are many that cannot be so split. Derek farn (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Source code need not be compiled, it can be interpreted as-is. I appreciate that statements/declarations sounds technical, but then people want to know what source code contains. Derek farn (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy either way, so lets move the material to a subsection. The rewrite was not clearer. Derek farn (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make major changes to an article that has had substantial work one on it. Work out major new wording changes here first. Derek farn (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't respond into the middle of comments. 1) There's some confusion: I stated that compsci is too broad a supercategory for source code, not that the intro was too broad. If anything, it's too narrow. I'm not sure what your comment about HTML is in reference to. 2) Comments about word use seem to be more lexicographic than encyclopedic, and "code" or "source" are informal. 3) Right - and my edit stated that code might be interpreted. Again, the main point is that talking about 'statements' and 'declarations' doesn't help anyone except people who already know what code is. 4) Ok
Your suggestion that major changes to an article should be discussed on the talk page strikes me as absurd. I made the edits in good faith, and this is not a controversial article. I gave reasons for my edit, and asked you to explain why you reverted it. It seems the only reason you gave for reverting it was "don't change substantial work". You pointed out that the rewrite was not clearer, but didn't give reasons why. Please point out which parts of my edit were less clear, and specifically what was technically inaccurate.–MT 09:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)