Talk:Code generation (compiler)

message: Code Generation is not just done from source code to machine code as stated in the introduction! It is rather about transforming data (e.g. models or other source code) written in one language (or conforming to one metamodel; cf. Code Generation by Model Transformation. A Case Study in Transformation Modularity) into code conforming to another language!
If this isn't too detailed, could somebody please add this?
141.76.178.215 (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article doesn't even mention the term "metaprogramming", though it would seem that it should.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.192.82 (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to Metaprogramming? 

message: If nobody can justify keeping the product links at the end of the article, then I plan to remove them.  There are just too many products that do code generation to allow for any reasonably short and neutral list here. There are ten pages of code generation products listed at http://www.codegeneration.net/generators.php, for example. Is there some non-arbitrary rationale for choosing a few? --Ds13 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product links 

message: This article currently confuses code generation as the compiler phase after lexing, parsing, and before assembly, with layman use of the phrase "code generation" for anything that generates source code (perhaps that can be called "source code generation"?).  I am planning on splitting these and creating a disamb.  —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 01:59Z
:Please do, if I don't beat you to it. I think of code generation as an IDE feature which creates the framework of a method. For example, you double-click on a control (widget) and Visual Studio inserts the method declaration for the control's default event into the form's source code. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, created a disambiguation page. Starting off with the three connotations discussed so far here. If there are any others, you now have a place to hang your hat. dr.ef.tymac 02:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Slow down please Taku. You should state clearly what you are doing before you go tagging articles for speedy deletion. Multiple editors expressed a view supporting the article you just summarily chose to delete. There were reasons for that. Moreover, your "layman use" distinction could use some clarification also. So far, there does not seem to be anything in your supporting rationale (other than personal preference) that justifies unilateral obliteration of the current article structure. dr.ef.tymac 01:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Follow-up: For starters, you can define precisely what you are talking about when you say "layman use" and clear up that ambiguity, which seems to be a fundamental assumption of your particular viewpoint. dr.ef.tymac 01:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for speedy deletion; it's just that I didn't expect objection. Like I said, I thought I was restoring the points that were lost when the old article was spitted. As for the term "layman use", I didn't think the article needs to clarify what it is. Instead I chose to edit the article so to emphasize the distinction between the use in compilers and others (by putting a header for now). Like I said I still cannot see how it is possible to have the points I restored without having the structure in the current article and havn't seen any rational to delete them in the first place. The problem raised, as I understand, is that the article confuses different uses of code generations (so naturally it was proposed to split the article). But I still think that the restored points are important. -- Taku 10:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layman use of "code generation" vs compiler code generation 

message: Taku: you obliterated a disambiguation page when you created a redirect. That's even worse than speedy deletion because it was done without an admin. You also seem to have a different understanding of what the "problem" was, which is why I requested clarification in the first place. Please consider these points before continuing: 
* 1) your proposed clarifications are not clearly stated what "old article" points exactly do you intend to restore? Can you please post it in the discussion page first, so others can understand what you are even talking about?
* 2) so far you have given no rationale for why the disambiguation page needed to be deleted you said you want to restore some older content, that's fine, but that is a separate issue. You can easily restore old content without deleting a disambiguation page. Just review the article history and copy what you want to restore. That is, unless the article history has been obliterated, which is apparently what you have done by making the redirect, even despite objections. dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: I was mistsaken, the page was actually speedily-deleted, which is how the content was removed, not by the redirect. dr.ef.tymac 15:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destroyed article content 

message: I like Quuxplusone's rewrite (in particular that it kept information that was lost in the original split). But it shows, I think, we really don't need source code generation. If that article, like he said, is simply a place for spam links and we can simply discuss this matter in this article, there is really not a point for having the two articles about code generation. The structure I am now proposing is let this article mainly talk about compiler code generation and discuss other uses in the end of the article. -- Taku 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to rewrite this article, ok, but don't delete source code generation. The two articles are separate. If there is spam in the other article it can be removed without deleting the whole article. The two articles are separate. There's no reason to delete the separate article, at least not yet anyway. If you can rewrite this article so it is clear, authoritiative, and obviates the need for another article, that's fine, but so far that hasn't happened, so deletion is not appropriate. The two articles are separate. dr.ef.tymac 00:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey! how about merge all symbolic-transformation-related articles under Formal language? That way, anytime a new "niche" is discovered, there's no ambiguity as to where it should go! ... *pause* ... Seriously, the apparent anytime "X" is similar to "Y", merge the two strategy seems counter-productive here, "See also" works well, no? dr.ef.tymac 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: There are technical problems with this artical.
Some compilers do not work in phases. They do not have seperate lexing, parsing, optimizing etc phases.
It is quite simple to parse and genetate stack machine code as you go. META II works by emmitimg stack machine assembly directly out of the parser.
EXP = TERM 
      $('+' TERM .OUT('ADD')
       /'-' TERM .OUT('SUB'));
Steamerandy (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  False statements