On 12/09/2014 12:33 PM, Per Jessen wrote:
Usually automated code-generation is a one-way street driven once. I don't think you can put compiler generated assembler in that category. The generated code does not need maintenance, only the source.
Now lets generalize that. That last statement applies to not just the input to a compiler but the input to YACC, LEX, RoR and many many other things. Yes, there is a problem if you don't have source, but that applies with most vendor products, doesn’t it? *YOU* can't fix it because you only have the output of the 'generator'. It doesn’t matter if that is automatically generated Ada, automatically generated Ruby, automatically generated output of YACC or LEX, or machine code from a compiler. Its "not for human readability". And hence it is an unmaintainable by humans form. Yes, by definition its a one-way process. Source code of any form will have implied semantics in naming as well as comments. No way can a 'reverse compiler' regenerate those :-) Hopefully the source is kept :-) "Driven once" -- well I'm not sure about that. many developers do CPLG development, incremental building of function, some even test each bit as they add it. The examples in most programming books build and add. So no, I disagree with "once". -- /"\ \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign X Against HTML Mail / \ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org