Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is code

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: What is code

#31

Post by Bromskloss »

kazinator wrote: post #10

Originally, "code" referred to machine language. "Programming" meant designing the computation, and "coding" referred to translating it to machine language. "Automatic coding" was the term for translating a high level program to machine code, and it covered compiling and interpretation. You can read all about it in Grace Hopper's 1955 paper Automatic Coding for Digital Computers . http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/…

> Though a woman, she talks the masculinized talk

You may or may not say "systems man" about a woman (depending on the language etc.), but I don't see that the sex of the _speaker_ has anything to do with it.

Re: What is code

#32

Post by millermp12 »

Bromskloss wrote: post #31
kazinator wrote: post #10

Originally, "code" referred to machine language. "Programming" meant designing the computation, and "coding" referred to translating it to machine language. "Automatic coding" was the term for translating a high level program to machine code, and it covered compiling and interpretation. You can read all about it in Grace Hopper's 1955 paper Automatic Coding for Digital Computers . http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/…

> Though a woman, she talks the masculinized talk You may or may not say "systems man" about a woman (depending on the language etc.), but I don't see that the sex of the _speaker_ has anything to do with it.

he wasn't referring to that one word, but the cadence and style of the her language in general.

Re: What is code

#33

Post by [deleted] »

humanrebar wrote: post #26
kazinator wrote: post #10

Originally, "code" referred to machine language. "Programming" meant designing the computation, and "coding" referred to translating it to machine language. "Automatic coding" was the term for translating a high level program to machine code, and it covered compiling and interpretation. You can read all about it in Grace Hopper's 1955 paper Automatic Coding for Digital Computers . http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/…

> Though a woman, she talks the masculinized talk I don't think that's accurate. It used to be that "he" and "man" were understood to be gender neutral in abstract and impersonal cases. Such as "to boldly go where no man has gone before" and "mankind" and "mailman". During Hopper's life, English language changed to expunge the ambiguity.

[deleted]

Re: What is code

#34

Post by bograt »

humanrebar wrote: post #26
kazinator wrote: post #10

Originally, "code" referred to machine language. "Programming" meant designing the computation, and "coding" referred to translating it to machine language. "Automatic coding" was the term for translating a high level program to machine code, and it covered compiling and interpretation. You can read all about it in Grace Hopper's 1955 paper Automatic Coding for Digital Computers . http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/…

> Though a woman, she talks the masculinized talk I don't think that's accurate. It used to be that "he" and "man" were understood to be gender neutral in abstract and impersonal cases. Such as "to boldly go where no man has gone before" and "mankind" and "mailman". During Hopper's life, English language changed to expunge the ambiguity.

I have to concede that I still talk in this now outmoded manner. I have to make a conscious effort to switch to modern gender neutral language (eg. they) when speaking or writing to anyone outside my family and friends.

> English language changed to expunge the ambiguity.

I think it's more accurate to say it adopted different ambiguities. The use of 'they' can create ambiguities of number, and just switching between he/she leaves the same ambiguity (is the gendering intentional or not?) albeit in a gender balanced way.

As a side-note, 'he' was used to refer to people, who could be regarded as interchangeable (man or woman) and 'she' was reserved for 'uniquely individual' things, which is why countries and ships (as two examples) are referred to as such. At least, this was may understanding when growing up and I've never lost this habit.

Re: What is code

#35

Post by cirgue »

humanrebar wrote: post #26
kazinator wrote: post #10

Originally, "code" referred to machine language. "Programming" meant designing the computation, and "coding" referred to translating it to machine language. "Automatic coding" was the term for translating a high level program to machine code, and it covered compiling and interpretation. You can read all about it in Grace Hopper's 1955 paper Automatic Coding for Digital Computers . http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/univac/…

> Though a woman, she talks the masculinized talk I don't think that's accurate. It used to be that "he" and "man" were understood to be gender neutral in abstract and impersonal cases. Such as "to boldly go where no man has gone before" and "mankind" and "mailman". During Hopper's life, English language changed to expunge the ambiguity.

Not only understood, but widely accepted as the grammatically correct general reference gender. English isn’t the only language to do this.

Re: What is code

#36

Post by kazinator »

eXpl0it3r wrote: post #25
disqard wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a beautiful distinction (one that I'm aware of), but which appears to have been lost today. Consequently, these terms are now used interchangeably, leading many people to conflate these two processes. However, this distinction is indicative of how getting a computer to do something has two components: 1. Figuring out what needs doing, and 2. Expressing this in a form that the computer can carry out. Thank you…

The distinction is lost because in many cases it doesn't hold relevance anymore. You don't need to write flow-charts, state or class diagrams before you start writing code. Todays tooling allows for more iterative approaches and also leaves room for making syntax errors without having to wait hours and days to get "compiler" errors. But I agree it's still interesting to know of the distinction and know that both can…

The point here is that when higher level languages were introduced, writing the higher level program was understood to be part of "programming"; and its compilation or interpretation became "automatic coding".

Another thing worth paying attention to in Grace Hopper's paper is this: higher level program code is in fact called "code", but specifically "pseudo code".

That which we call "pseudo code" today doesn't execute. But we sometimes remark that certain high level languages are almost like "executable pseudocode".

At that time, the task of the compiler/interpreter writer was to take "pseudo code", formalize it more precisely so that then the machine could "automatically code" from "pseudo code" to "code".'

Re: What is code

#37

Post by bluesnowmonkey »

monadgonad wrote: post #15

I don't think this really achieves what it sets out to do, unless it was meant to be aimed at already very tech-literate people who just don't program yet. It fails my usual test for laypersons' explanations: would my mum understand it? My mum is a smart but non-techie person. I think this article, jumping off from its irrelevant take on business needs, through a (in my opinion) backwards diversion that fails to actu…

It succeeds in the goal of helping programmers understand how they are perceived by business people, and how to be effective in a business environment.

Re: What is code

#38

Post by kzzzznot »

shabbyrobe wrote: post #5
ulises314 wrote: post #3

Baby don't hurt me...

This song popped straight into my head too! Before the humourless downvote-brigade gets you, here is the song for those unfamiliar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5G1FmU-ldg

I think this is the better version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwVh8pmOot4

Re: What is code

#39

Post by deathbytray »

bluesnowmonkey wrote: post #37
monadgonad wrote: post #15

I don't think this really achieves what it sets out to do, unless it was meant to be aimed at already very tech-literate people who just don't program yet. It fails my usual test for laypersons' explanations: would my mum understand it? My mum is a smart but non-techie person. I think this article, jumping off from its irrelevant take on business needs, through a (in my opinion) backwards diversion that fails to actu…

It succeeds in the goal of helping programmers understand how they are perceived by business people, and how to be effective in a business environment.

I feel like he accomplishes this in the first section of the writing. I agree with you, my favorite part is the fictional(?) narrative in the beginning. I almost wish this article was less about "what is coding" and rather a deeper exploration of how developers and software projects are perceived by traditional business people.

Re: What is code

#40

Post by noway421 »

I wish they would tell the story further, including how the man in taupe blazer would deliver the project and whether it would be a success or not, and what would happen past delivery.
Post reply on HN