Talk:Machine code

message: in computer ,how to covert highlevel language to machine language
: With a compiler. --Mike Van Emmerik 21:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Assembly language vs. symbolic machine language 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revision of 8th November 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Differences 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry Salem F I do not quite understand what you are saying here. Were you asking a question? Can you please try saying it with different words? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: yes, I do not understand the question, either.  Not many people program with machine code unless they have masochistic tendencies.  So, I think Salem must have meant to ask something else.  stmrlbs|talk 00:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What it used for

message: 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)
replies: text: Strongly oppose merging in the proposed way, at least because bytecode has 18 interlanguage links to articles (it means that in yet 18 languages these topics are separated). Should bytecode be considered as a special case of machine code or it should not, of course, is disputable. And there is a confusion between bytecode as a concept and Java bytecode, though. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe I have made any suggestions as to how this should be merged (although I do see your point). Java bytecode is simply one machine language, which is used in the Java machine and as such is a type of "bytecode" or machine code. That there is no technical difference between the terms should at least be clarified in both articles, if they are not merged. 80.167.145.223 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how Java bytecode, which is machine independent, can be mistaken for machine code - which is obviously machine (ie, processor) dependent. Java bytecode is interpreted by a Java Virtual Machine. Machine code is interpreted by a processor.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.29.70 (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between "byte" code and "machine" code 

message: [] what was wrong with two distinct sections about two opposite data transformations? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The edit by [[user:Beland]] 

message: Although definitely a good-faith edit, I opted to remove it because of 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the confusion here - the last sentence says that the interpreter is typically machine code, which is certainly true.  But there is nothing at all preventing someone from writing an interpreter in an interpreted language (in fact it's happened often), but performance will usually be poor.  Rwessel (talk) 04:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

text: And as regards physical vs. electronic, electronics are the most common way to implement a CPU, but is hardly a requirement.  Pneumatic and hydraulic "logic circuits" certainly exist (and are used in mechanic systems to control operation of devices), and one could, in principle, build a computer out of such things.  Babbage's Analytical Engine, for example, had it been built, would have been entirely mechanical.  Rwessel (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The edit of 174.94.3.167 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevance of Berkley Law professor's opinion on human readability