|WikiProject Computer science||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Code meaning Algorithm
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 —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 17 December 2001 (UTC).
- 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Daniel Crocker (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 December 2001 (UTC)
- It's the difference between "have you got any code that does foo" vs "have you got a code that does foo".
- 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 —Preceding undated comment added 01:07, 18 December 2001 (UTC).
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 —Preceding undated comment added 22:15, 17 December 2001 (UTC).
- They are extemely obscure. I can't find independent reference to it. they belong more logically in morse code, it seems to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagedis (talk • contribs) 22:18, 17 December 2001 (UTC)
- 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 —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 17 December 2001 (UTC).
Code of honour
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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagedis (talk • contribs) 23:08, 17 December 2001 (UTC)
- 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 —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 17 December 2001 (UTC).
Code and Cipher
I clarified the difference between code and cipher - the most common use is to call it encipher/encrypt if you have secrecy in mind and encode if you don't. I have never seen the ASCII-code called cipher and it is not common practice anymore to distinguish it by word/phrase or byte-level encoding.
I also added references to data compression and error correction.
LDC: If you want to put back the Morse code examples - IMHO it is more appropriate on a Morse code article. -- Rochus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochus (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 January 2003 (UTC)
Marked for cleanup
There are so many definitions on this relatively long page, its confusing to sift through them, so I listed it on cleanup. Maybe a disambiguation page should be made, and then new pages for the rather long meanings. —siroχo 04:12, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
Merge with "coding theory" ?
Suggest this article should be merged with coding theory. Both cover much the same territory, and both could use some beefing up.
-- Jheald 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
- The idea of codes as covered in this article has rather little in common with coding theory. I can consider this proposal dead for lack of support, and will remove the tag. Dicklyon 00:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the article has little in common with coding theory. Rather, I think the sections related to coding theory (Variable length codes, Block codes, Error correcting codes) are not suitable for a general article on codes and should be merged with the article on Coding theory, or deleted in case this article does not contain any additional information. Isheden (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Merge from Encoding
The article on encoding is a list of bullet points which talks about encoding in different domains. Even if the article is expanded to full paragraphs with each covering a domain, the subject of encoding in any domain will be no different from what the domain's code stands for, which the code article attempts to cover. Jay (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, and also think the decoding "article" should be merged into this one as well. -- Schapel (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't natural language among the examples? To me it's the first and foremost code as I use it rather frequently. AFAIK, in German linguistics "code" is a common term for language. This might be different in English but the definition at the beginning of the article still clearly includes natural language. --Mudd1 (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I am not happy with the definition in the front myself.
A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.
Number 1 - the rule is not defined, neither is the act of converting - what is converted to what, because you do not convert either of them. No. 2. All you do is to pair or to match them in a table the elements of which are sorted to make them become a code.
We should start from objects, a group of unsorted objects, such as a set. This set does not mean anything for the person when he examines the properties of the elements of the set one by one, by comparing them as a result of which he can sort them in an order by identifying/judging one and the same property of each member. As a result, you will get an ordered list sorted on that property with the objects associated with the properties serving as a code (code table) for either the property or the object so related and now sorted to become a code - where a one-to-one correspondence of the property and each member (object) is that turns or makes the set a code.
Current new News
Headline-1: Mysterious 150-year-old writing in rare copy of Homer's 'Odyssey' identified
Headline-2: Computer Engineer Cracks 150-Year-Old 'Odyssey' Code