Talk:Source code

message: 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)
replies: text: Machine language is not human readable.  It might be debatable if machine language is a programming language, however, because it would be very difficult to program in, being not human readable. 71.142.100.154 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Binary code is not human readable (it is just 0s and 1s). My Ubuntu (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we usually call a machine language a programming language, or machine code source code.  Therefore I have removed the qualification human readable.  Instead I have added more detail about translation, like M did before.  I also narrowed the initial definition, corrected the way the SCAM article was introduced, and removed the untrue assertion that source code consists of statements and declarations. Rp (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  B 

message: 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)
thread_title: DevCDs and non-free sourcecode

message: 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)
thread_title:  A 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ok, some unregistered user took care of that. :-) zub 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Password systems 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HL2 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bad Comments 

message: 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)
thread_title: software anomalies

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Source is not just source code

message: 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)
thread_title: Need further explaining

message: I reverted a change making the Licensing section specific to the GPL, instead of general.  My motivation for doing so was:
# The GPL – while hugely important – is not the exclusive means by which "free" software is licensed.
# I think the claim that "most" free software is licensed under the GPL need some justification.
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)
thread_title:  Licensing, GPL 

message: For general information, the third paragraph of this article:
<TT>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.</TT>
was cited by the United States District Court, D. Utah, Northern Division, in footnote 42 of a controversial  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)
replies: text: Does this imply I shouldn't have changed it?  (Thought experiment: a human reading PostScript, or APL.) Rp (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Source code is the inventive text that instructs an automaton how to accomplish its task. (this is not an easy concept to define) 108.67.200.56 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page cited by US District Court 

message: 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:
 Analogy between law and source code
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)
thread_title:  Multicourt law making 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Offical source of the open source software that is used by Wikipedia itself. 

message: The usage of  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)
thread_title:  Source Code 

message: 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)
replies: text: Who is "you"?  I agree with you 100%.  Then again, you know how it is with languages. Many people have never thought of document formats as languages and have only heard of programming languages and natural languages. Rp (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated attempts to remove "computer language" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
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)
replies: text: Source code →  To avoid confusion with 2011 film Source Code. 31.52.4.146 (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move