Talk:Object language/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Object language. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Definition
This definition seems to conflict with the artlcle.. I don't know which one is correct... http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/object+language Evil saltine 10:50, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Yeah, this one is totally bizarre. We have object code for the one that is a compilation stage. Stan 17:19, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- As the one who rewrote the article (and as a computer engineer too), I think the article is wrong. I was going based off of what the original poster submitted and I wasn't thinking hard about it for myself. Typically, "Meta" (in a programming sense) is the highest language. The code producted by the compiler is typically refered to as the object code. --Raul654 19:26, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Split
These notions are too different for a single article. We should have articles on notions, not on dictionary idioms. Pcap ping 19:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- This article should probably (definitely) be split up into two articles, something like Object language (Computing) and Object language (Logic). The two different concepts are unrelated. A logical object language is a formal language which is an object of a metalanguage. The closest thing to a metalanguage which a computer language has is whatever language the compiler is written in. The compiler is a definition of the computer language in terms of operational semantics. The meaning of statements in that computer language then is the compiler's output (assembly code, the computer science sense of the term object language).
- But formalizing the computer language in this way makes it the object language, and whatever language the compiler is written in the metalanguage. If we want to consider the assembly language the object language in the logical sense, then the metalanguage is whatever language the CPU's specifications are written in.
- I hope that was sufficiently clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dranorter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Article has been substantially rewritten since split request. Split declined. Please reappraise and if still in need of a split please add new tag with new rationale, fitting current contents. SilkTork *YES! 23:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)