890
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 50 points 1 year ago

No, it is wrong. Machine code is not source code.

[-] olorin99@artemis.camp 16 points 1 year ago

And even if you had the source code it may not necessarily qualify as open source.

[-] vox@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

well assembly is technically "source code" and can be 1:1 translated to and from binary, excluding "syntactic sugar" stuff like macros and labels added on top.

[-] Malfeasant@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

But those things you're excluding are the most important parts of the source code...

[-] 257m@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

By excluded he means macro assemblers which in my mind do qualify as an actual langauge as they have more complicated syntax than instruction arg1, arg2 ...

[-] 257m@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

The code is produced by the compiler but they are not the original source. To qualify as source code it needs to be in the original language it was written in and a one for one copy. Calling compiler produced assembly source code is wrong as it isn't what the author wrote and their could be many versions of it depending on architecture.

this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
890 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

19817 readers
44 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS