This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Source 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 ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
How do I recieve software development and downloads Babygirlkelly40 ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, hmm. Several issues are raised by the current version of this page:
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)
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);
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)
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)
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)
I think this image needs a new version:
E.g. (needs more comments) just the main part of this code:
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import java.awt.*;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//Remind: better title
JFrame frame = new JFrame("Hello");
JButton button = new JButton("Click Me");
button.addActionListener(new ButtonListener());
//TODO: add menu
frame.add(button);
frame.pack();
frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(WindowConstants.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
frame.setVisible(true);
}
private static class ButtonListener implements ActionListener {
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog((Component)e.getSource(),"Hello World!");
}
}
}
The present image doesn't display correct Java source code - the last statement should precede the closing }
. Can the author please fix this? Please compile your examples before you put them here.
Rp (
talk)
09:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please tell me if my software is updated please cause some funtions doesn't work Elizabeth Magdalena Miccadei ( talk) 07:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't source code be hyphenated as "source-code"? SharkD 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since there's opposition to my rewrite from Derek farn, I'll give a fuller explanation for the parts.
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. –M T 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
i think java isa terrible example of code, its not a real programming language
main()
{
printf("hello, world");
}
cheers Shaddim ( talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted a change making the Licensing section specific to the GPL, instead of general. My motivation for doing so was:
I do think it's be reasonable for the GPL to have a line or two in the Licensing section, but the wording as reverted was just too strong. jsled ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For general information, the third paragraph of this article:
A computer program's source code is the collection of files needed to convert from human-readable form to some kind of computer-executable form. The source code may be converted into an executable file by a compiler, or executed on the fly from the human readable form with the aid of an interpreter.
was cited by the United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division, in footnote 42 of a controversial [3] order against ASUS, Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C., v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 910801 (D.Utah March 30, 2009). Changes to that paragraph should be more deeply considered than usual. travisl ( talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for the word or concept that describes nefarious effect of multiple legal disputes (as in the same [potential] violation investigated [or ruled upon] by multiple courts simultaneously). I am looking for such a term in either applied law, or in law theory litterature.
To the (small) extent that law can be compared to indeterministic computer code. Trying to match by analogy:
legal | computational |
---|---|
politics | programming |
laws | computer code |
(effective or ideal) jurisdiction | (real or virtual) computer machine |
evidence | data,parameters |
court case (including lawyers, judge,...) | processor (including instruction fetching and interpretation and execution) |
court ruling | output |
multiple simultaneous courts
(using evidence from the other courts) |
multithreading |
multicourt-safe law [making]
(ruling doesn't depend on variable order of progress in each court) |
threadsafe program[ming] |
In theoretical and applied programming the demonstrated nefarious effects of writing code from the assumption of 1 actor(theoretical)/processor(practical) has been demonstrated.
Is there a subject in law theory that describes the same theoretical problems or practical precedents? What is it called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.146 ( talk) 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC) A sort of lawlessness of concurrency in law. An important distinction between persons and institutions, is that organizations can arm themselves with LKBS software to find loopholes through this lawlessness whereas individuals in similar situations do not have this access to the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.146 ( talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link somewhere for the very software used by WikiPedia?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Maerklin44 ( talk) 15:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The usage of Source Code is under discussion. It currently redirects to source code. The discussion is at Talk:Source Code (film) .
184.144.160.156 ( talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As 72.234.84.49 ( talk · contribs) noted, there is an unclear terminology here. But lacks of clarity depends on the programming language/ computer language terms confusing, see the article. Despite the tangle, no one classifies HTML as a programming language, but there is a term "HTML source code".
Next, I do not agree that an interpreter must translate something to machine code (there is at least two severe objections to it), and by no means a removal of {{ fact}} request may be considered as some improvement or "cleanup". I reverted all changes of Rp ( talk · contribs) as apparently non-constructive. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that Rp removed here the assertion that source code is human-readable. How is it debatable that source code "can be naturally read by humans"? The moment it can't be naturally read, it ceases to be source code but an intermediate representation. Also human-readable is opposed to machine-readable, which is explicitly understood as not-source-code. Diego ( talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Je suis très content de vous réservoir. Daphis Wesley ( talk) 17:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Je suis très content de vous réservoir. Daphis Wesley ( talk) 17:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You can remove it a hundred of times, but this will not make HTML a " programming language". The fact that computer language is a redirect indicates confusing terminology and laziness of some Wikipedians which are unable to create an article existing in a dozen of languages. Any time these words will disappear, I will insert it back. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead seems a bit long to me. After the first paragraph, most of it should probably be in it's own section and/or removed.
Example: "The source code which constitutes a program is usually held in one or more text files stored on a computer's hard disk; usually these files are carefully arranged into a directory tree, known as a source tree. Source code can also be stored in a database (as is common for stored procedures) or elsewhere." That should either be removed, or added into the organization section. Thoughts? CharmlessCoin ( talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW: proposed title is unheard of and against guidelines. The existing hatnote does the job of avoiding confusion with the film. — JFG talk 22:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Source code →
Source codes To avoid confusion with 2011 film
Source Code.
31.52.4.146 (
talk)
15:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Source 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 ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
How do I recieve software development and downloads Babygirlkelly40 ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, hmm. Several issues are raised by the current version of this page:
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)
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);
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)
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)
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)
I think this image needs a new version:
E.g. (needs more comments) just the main part of this code:
import javax.swing.*;
import java.awt.event.*;
import java.awt.*;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//Remind: better title
JFrame frame = new JFrame("Hello");
JButton button = new JButton("Click Me");
button.addActionListener(new ButtonListener());
//TODO: add menu
frame.add(button);
frame.pack();
frame.setDefaultCloseOperation(WindowConstants.EXIT_ON_CLOSE);
frame.setVisible(true);
}
private static class ButtonListener implements ActionListener {
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) {
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog((Component)e.getSource(),"Hello World!");
}
}
}
The present image doesn't display correct Java source code - the last statement should precede the closing }
. Can the author please fix this? Please compile your examples before you put them here.
Rp (
talk)
09:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Please tell me if my software is updated please cause some funtions doesn't work Elizabeth Magdalena Miccadei ( talk) 07:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't source code be hyphenated as "source-code"? SharkD 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Since there's opposition to my rewrite from Derek farn, I'll give a fuller explanation for the parts.
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. –M T 06:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
i think java isa terrible example of code, its not a real programming language
main()
{
printf("hello, world");
}
cheers Shaddim ( talk) 13:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted a change making the Licensing section specific to the GPL, instead of general. My motivation for doing so was:
I do think it's be reasonable for the GPL to have a line or two in the Licensing section, but the wording as reverted was just too strong. jsled ( talk) 14:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For general information, the third paragraph of this article:
A computer program's source code is the collection of files needed to convert from human-readable form to some kind of computer-executable form. The source code may be converted into an executable file by a compiler, or executed on the fly from the human readable form with the aid of an interpreter.
was cited by the United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division, in footnote 42 of a controversial [3] order against ASUS, Phillip M. Adams & Associates, L.L.C., v. Dell, Inc., 2009 WL 910801 (D.Utah March 30, 2009). Changes to that paragraph should be more deeply considered than usual. travisl ( talk) 16:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I am looking for the word or concept that describes nefarious effect of multiple legal disputes (as in the same [potential] violation investigated [or ruled upon] by multiple courts simultaneously). I am looking for such a term in either applied law, or in law theory litterature.
To the (small) extent that law can be compared to indeterministic computer code. Trying to match by analogy:
legal | computational |
---|---|
politics | programming |
laws | computer code |
(effective or ideal) jurisdiction | (real or virtual) computer machine |
evidence | data,parameters |
court case (including lawyers, judge,...) | processor (including instruction fetching and interpretation and execution) |
court ruling | output |
multiple simultaneous courts
(using evidence from the other courts) |
multithreading |
multicourt-safe law [making]
(ruling doesn't depend on variable order of progress in each court) |
threadsafe program[ming] |
In theoretical and applied programming the demonstrated nefarious effects of writing code from the assumption of 1 actor(theoretical)/processor(practical) has been demonstrated.
Is there a subject in law theory that describes the same theoretical problems or practical precedents? What is it called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.146 ( talk) 00:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC) A sort of lawlessness of concurrency in law. An important distinction between persons and institutions, is that organizations can arm themselves with LKBS software to find loopholes through this lawlessness whereas individuals in similar situations do not have this access to the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.12.146 ( talk) 00:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link somewhere for the very software used by WikiPedia?
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki
Maerklin44 ( talk) 15:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The usage of Source Code is under discussion. It currently redirects to source code. The discussion is at Talk:Source Code (film) .
184.144.160.156 ( talk) 04:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As 72.234.84.49 ( talk · contribs) noted, there is an unclear terminology here. But lacks of clarity depends on the programming language/ computer language terms confusing, see the article. Despite the tangle, no one classifies HTML as a programming language, but there is a term "HTML source code".
Next, I do not agree that an interpreter must translate something to machine code (there is at least two severe objections to it), and by no means a removal of {{ fact}} request may be considered as some improvement or "cleanup". I reverted all changes of Rp ( talk · contribs) as apparently non-constructive. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 09:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that Rp removed here the assertion that source code is human-readable. How is it debatable that source code "can be naturally read by humans"? The moment it can't be naturally read, it ceases to be source code but an intermediate representation. Also human-readable is opposed to machine-readable, which is explicitly understood as not-source-code. Diego ( talk) 10:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Je suis très content de vous réservoir. Daphis Wesley ( talk) 17:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Je suis très content de vous réservoir. Daphis Wesley ( talk) 17:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
You can remove it a hundred of times, but this will not make HTML a " programming language". The fact that computer language is a redirect indicates confusing terminology and laziness of some Wikipedians which are unable to create an article existing in a dozen of languages. Any time these words will disappear, I will insert it back. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The lead seems a bit long to me. After the first paragraph, most of it should probably be in it's own section and/or removed.
Example: "The source code which constitutes a program is usually held in one or more text files stored on a computer's hard disk; usually these files are carefully arranged into a directory tree, known as a source tree. Source code can also be stored in a database (as is common for stored procedures) or elsewhere." That should either be removed, or added into the organization section. Thoughts? CharmlessCoin ( talk) 22:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW: proposed title is unheard of and against guidelines. The existing hatnote does the job of avoiding confusion with the film. — JFG talk 22:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Source code →
Source codes To avoid confusion with 2011 film
Source Code.
31.52.4.146 (
talk)
15:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)