This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Machine code article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
in computer ,how to covert highlevel language to machine language
It's not clear to me: is it the concensus that "machine language" is the same thing as "machine code"? Or is "machine language" a bit more like a grammar, and machine code only like "sentences" (programs or modules) expressed in that language? Or perhaps the language is a bit like an enum: you could talk about the Z80 language or the MIPs language, so while there is one Z80 language, there are many Z80 machine codes (compiled or assembled Z80 programs)? I think it would be good to spell this out in the article, which seems to use the two terms more or less interchangeably. -- Mike Van Emmerik 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, is there a consensus that instruction set is the same thing as "machine language"? The terminology makes it sound analogous to several natural languages being written out in some character set. But when someone talks about 2 different "machine languages", that always means he's talking about 2 different "instruction set"s, in my experience. I often hear the phrase "written in machine language", usually meaning that some person typed in assembly language). When I hear "machine code", the speaker is usually pointing out a block of hexadecimal numbers generated by a compiler or an assembler. Sometimes I hear "some machine code" or "the machine code for this program", so I think you are right. It's analogous to "some English text" or "the English text for this document". But "there are many Z80 machine codes" doesn't sound quite right to my ears. "There is a lot of Z80 machine code" sounds better -- I wish I could put a finger on exactly why. -- User:DavidCary -- 70.189.75.148 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am in doubt if these are the same. I believe that assembly language is the language actually used for coding to the assembler. On the other hand you do not code in symbolic machine language but use it for examining code, ie. instead of reviewing the assembler output as pure hexidecimal, you can (for learning purposes) write it in symbolic machine code, where at least all the opcodes are replaced by a mnemonics. Symbolic machine code is not mentioned in neither Machine code or Assembly language. Velle 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This revert by Karol appears to have been to a much earlier version, and happened to overlap with Tobias' reversion. -- Mike Van Emmerik 22:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I added some text at the beginning. -- VKokielov 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Are programs that need a kernel to run in machine code, or is it an OS specific format? -- Doomguy0505 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
the article rake about almost everything except the use of Machine language or Machine Code and who is programing by it .is the compiler programed By Machine Code or part of it ..or Some Part of OS are programed by machine code etc . Salem F ( talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
can we have more example of Programs that's wrote by machine code. i know some programs had wrote by machine code on Old days and now or Assemly Language take it place for ever (see the use of Assemply language) .........-- Salem F ( talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There isn't any. The only difference is that machines that understand "byte" code is often implemented in software, while machines that understand "machine" code is often implemented in hardware, but there is no reason why a "byte" code machine cannot be implemented in hardware or a "machine" code machine in software. In fact, there are plenty of example of both.
I suggest the two articles (this one and bytecode be merged and this point be clarified. 13:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederikHertzum ( talk • contribs)
[1] what was wrong with two distinct sections about two opposite data transformations? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Although definitely a good-faith edit, I opted to remove it because of
“ | The only domain where machine code sees any significant use today | ” |
— 174.94.3.167, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Machine_code&diff=556695797 |
which is, at best, ambiguous. I would say that it is a rubbish, because any executable program represents a “use of machine code”. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is much confusion here. The last sentence of the intro, by using the word "typically", leaves the impression that a hardware processor may not need machine language to operate. And the first paragraph after that should say "electronic" rather than "physical" design. 74.76.137.34 ( talk) 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The question is in the title.
Do you think that computing people must agree with the law professor's opinion?
FelixHx (
talk)
19:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I misspoke in my comment. My comment should say, "Computer code article is now redirected to Source code article, which doesn't apply here." Timhowardriley ( talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The IBM High Level Assembler (HLASM) has an ADATA option directing it to produce an Associated data file output, containg data describing the contents of both the source and object files. The available debuggers for, e.g., z/OS, have the ability to display the source line corresponding to an instruction of interest. However, the ADATA file itself is not human friendly. Should Machine code § Readability by human mention it? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Machine code article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
in computer ,how to covert highlevel language to machine language
It's not clear to me: is it the concensus that "machine language" is the same thing as "machine code"? Or is "machine language" a bit more like a grammar, and machine code only like "sentences" (programs or modules) expressed in that language? Or perhaps the language is a bit like an enum: you could talk about the Z80 language or the MIPs language, so while there is one Z80 language, there are many Z80 machine codes (compiled or assembled Z80 programs)? I think it would be good to spell this out in the article, which seems to use the two terms more or less interchangeably. -- Mike Van Emmerik 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, is there a consensus that instruction set is the same thing as "machine language"? The terminology makes it sound analogous to several natural languages being written out in some character set. But when someone talks about 2 different "machine languages", that always means he's talking about 2 different "instruction set"s, in my experience. I often hear the phrase "written in machine language", usually meaning that some person typed in assembly language). When I hear "machine code", the speaker is usually pointing out a block of hexadecimal numbers generated by a compiler or an assembler. Sometimes I hear "some machine code" or "the machine code for this program", so I think you are right. It's analogous to "some English text" or "the English text for this document". But "there are many Z80 machine codes" doesn't sound quite right to my ears. "There is a lot of Z80 machine code" sounds better -- I wish I could put a finger on exactly why. -- User:DavidCary -- 70.189.75.148 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I am in doubt if these are the same. I believe that assembly language is the language actually used for coding to the assembler. On the other hand you do not code in symbolic machine language but use it for examining code, ie. instead of reviewing the assembler output as pure hexidecimal, you can (for learning purposes) write it in symbolic machine code, where at least all the opcodes are replaced by a mnemonics. Symbolic machine code is not mentioned in neither Machine code or Assembly language. Velle 17:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
This revert by Karol appears to have been to a much earlier version, and happened to overlap with Tobias' reversion. -- Mike Van Emmerik 22:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I added some text at the beginning. -- VKokielov 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Are programs that need a kernel to run in machine code, or is it an OS specific format? -- Doomguy0505 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
the article rake about almost everything except the use of Machine language or Machine Code and who is programing by it .is the compiler programed By Machine Code or part of it ..or Some Part of OS are programed by machine code etc . Salem F ( talk) 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
can we have more example of Programs that's wrote by machine code. i know some programs had wrote by machine code on Old days and now or Assemly Language take it place for ever (see the use of Assemply language) .........-- Salem F ( talk) 20:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
There isn't any. The only difference is that machines that understand "byte" code is often implemented in software, while machines that understand "machine" code is often implemented in hardware, but there is no reason why a "byte" code machine cannot be implemented in hardware or a "machine" code machine in software. In fact, there are plenty of example of both.
I suggest the two articles (this one and bytecode be merged and this point be clarified. 13:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederikHertzum ( talk • contribs)
[1] what was wrong with two distinct sections about two opposite data transformations? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 17:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Although definitely a good-faith edit, I opted to remove it because of
“ | The only domain where machine code sees any significant use today | ” |
— 174.94.3.167, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Machine_code&diff=556695797 |
which is, at best, ambiguous. I would say that it is a rubbish, because any executable program represents a “use of machine code”. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is much confusion here. The last sentence of the intro, by using the word "typically", leaves the impression that a hardware processor may not need machine language to operate. And the first paragraph after that should say "electronic" rather than "physical" design. 74.76.137.34 ( talk) 16:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
The question is in the title.
Do you think that computing people must agree with the law professor's opinion?
FelixHx (
talk)
19:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I misspoke in my comment. My comment should say, "Computer code article is now redirected to Source code article, which doesn't apply here." Timhowardriley ( talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The IBM High Level Assembler (HLASM) has an ADATA option directing it to produce an Associated data file output, containg data describing the contents of both the source and object files. The available debuggers for, e.g., z/OS, have the ability to display the source line corresponding to an instruction of interest. However, the ADATA file itself is not human friendly. Should Machine code § Readability by human mention it? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul ( talk) 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
References