I like the rewrite--the earlier stuff that made a big deal about
codes being only symbolic->semantic is far more specialized than
the ordinary English usage of the word, and belongs in an article
of its own right, perhaps something related to information theory.
Please don't place domain-specific stuff like that in articles
whose titles are simple words--it implies that the field-specific
meaning is the general one.
I also removed a reference that implied that the word "code" could
mean "algorithm"; I've never seen this use in my 20 years of programming.
"Code" always refers to the actual instruction text, not what it
represents. --LDC
When there are clearly two or more people actively working on a page,
it is a good idea to justify your changes here in the Talk page.
Why remove the 5-letter Morse code groups; they are a good example
of the "data compression" use of codes which is not otherwise
covered here. I'm putting them back, but with a better explanation
of that fact, unless you can give me a good reason not to. --LDC
They are extemely obscure. I can't find independent reference to it. they belong more
logically in morse code, it seems to me.
Yes, they do fit better over there; if you can find another good example of
the use of codes for brevity (perhaps something like the restaurant codes?),
then feel free to replace it, but I think the article needs something on that. --LDC
I put the code-of-honour etc., definition at the top, since I think it emphasises the basic
meaning of the word, which is also behind most of the other definitions. This may be
slightly obscured to people who live with the technical usage.
I certainly agree that we techies can't always be counted on to know the general public
perception of a word when there's a technical use. Is law code really the central concept here?
My own perception is that "symbolic substitution" is the central concept, and that laws
became "codified" (i.e., arranged in organized codes) after-the-fact, by creating a set
of symbols for them (numbers and so on). But maybe law codes really did come first.
I'd like to see what OED says on the matter. --LDC
I don't understand what this sentence was trying to say:
- The sense of code referring to the program itself is still sometimes encountered, e.g., "Fortran codes".
This usage is the "source code" usage already described.
It's the difference between "have you got any code that does foo" vs "have you got a code that does foo".
True, not very significant and probably better left here in Talk to avoid confusion.
I've never heard that second usage ("a code..."), and I've been programming for about 20 years. Maybe it's specific to a certain subset of programmers. --LDC
I've only noticed it with a few Fortran numerical programmers.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)