Talk:Source code
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] DevCDs and non-free sourcecode
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)
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)
[edit] Password systems
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);
- Ok, some unregistered user took care of that. :-) zub 08:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] HL2
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)
[edit] Ugly picture
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)
[edit] New Image
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)
[edit] Bad Comments
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)
[edit] software anomalies
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)
[edit] Hyphenation
Shouldn't source code be hyphenated as "source-code"? SharkD 02:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
