|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, April 11 2013 @ 06:56 PM EDT |
Yes I would, actually. BASIC, anyone? (or any other interpreted language)
Or all the equivalence theories - the source IS THE SAME as the object, which IS
THE SAME as the executable. Okay, that feels wrong to a human, but as far as the
maths is concerned (there's that "patents are forbidden here" word
again) there is no difference between them.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 14 2013 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
All code is human readable.
The first programming language I learned was BASIC. The second language I
learned was raw numeric CPU instruction codes. I didn't have a compiler, I
didn't have an assembler, I had nothing but a book listing numeric CPU codes and
I was directly reading and writing those numeric codes in RAM. The programming
language I was reading and writing was raw numeric executable code. I hate it
when I hear people talking about "human readable source code" and
"machine readable object/executable code" as if there were any
fundamental difference between them. All object code / executable code is
readable by a sufficiently skilled programmer. Imagine the absolute absurdity of
someone claiming that text written in Swahili was somehow different than any
other language, claiming that Swahili should be treated differently than other
languages in a courtroom, that it should be treated differently than other
languages by the law, merely because *most people* don't know how to read it or
because it was more difficult to read. Claiming that copyright should treat
Swahili text different than any other language, claiming that *publishing* in
Swahili should be treated differently by the law. Claiming that Swahili wasn't
"human readable", or claiming that it was "functional" or
something, and therefore the law should treat that language differently. That's
obviously ludicrous.
The same is true in the other direction - source code is machine-readable /
executable code. You merely need a machine with the proper interpreter. Source
code can be directly machine executable if you have a CPU designed for it. In
fact I believe that there do exist CPUs that directly execute FORTH code, and
there's no reason CPUs couldn't be produced for other languages. Note: I'm not
saying that a BASIC-CPU or a Python-CPU would be a *good* idea, I'd just
pointing out that they could be made, I'm making the point that there's no real
fundamental difference between source code and object/executable code.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
