How compilers work

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
User avatar
EMTe
Posts: 784
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher
Location: Cracow

Re: How compilers work

Post by EMTe » April 20th, 2018, 11:46 am

Halc wrote:Text entered into a computer might be recognizable by some program (say the compiler), but the computer itself has no idea what the text means. The compiler translates that text into something that the processor (which is effectively 'the computer') actually does understand.
Well, this is what all the fuss is about! How does text (meaningless and largely random combination of dots and lines) is being understood by compiler (whatever this devil is), what is this "something" and how does processor (physical creation, largely random combination of Mendeleyev table elements) puts it together into something useful again.
The friend's reply to Scott wrote:Ah, but it is. In machine code, your instruction set mostly consist of doing stuff to memory or jumping to another instruction. Even a simple high level programming code "echo "Hello world."" has so many things that the processor does not understand or even care about. For the computer to understand the task of displaying "Hello world" on display, it's broken down to many simple instructions that have very little to do with displaying stuff on screen.
Correct, but a compiler doesn't do these parts. Somebody wrote a program (or several of them that interact actually) that are invoked by a request to print something. The compiler example I posted managed to print "hello world" in just 2 machine instructions. The job of the compiler is complete after that fairly trivial effort.
]Human reliance on inefficient verbal language instead of more efficient chemical signals
have in mind folks that most of debates in forums like this one are based on a premonition that "language" or "mind" are something very different to physics and chemistry. Language, whatever it is,is physical and chemical. It is produced by our mouths and hands. And understood by our ears and brains.

Now, forums like this one are metaphysically-bent and they will never abandon the idea that the separation between mind and body is merely cultural (and linguistic - but this requires deeper debate) choice.

Now, I have abandoned this dualism long time ago. So, I'm asking again, without the whole web connection between minds, bodies, computers, humans, languages etc. Let's assume for a moment that every piece of the puzzle in here is physical and computable. Human, compiler, computer, language. We are all part of the Mendeleyev table.

Now, if we are capable of understanding how helium works when in meets oxygen, why it gets so difficult when we try to understand how compilers, languages, humans, computers work together, when they meet?
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 132
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by Halc » April 20th, 2018, 1:24 pm

EMTe wrote:
April 20th, 2018, 11:46 am
How does text (meaningless and largely random combination of dots and lines) is being understood by compiler (whatever this devil is), what is this "something" and how does processor (physical creation, largely random combination of Mendeleyev table elements) puts it together into something useful again.
Binary data is not meaningless. You already called it text, which means it has meaning, being intended to be interpreted as text by say a word processor or a compiler, both being programs that understand binary encoded text. The computer itself probably contains no hardware that gives meaning to text. The meaning is to various programs (software), not to the computer itself. You as a human understand more ink-encoded text (when reading) and pen/keyboard-encoded text (when writing). The word processor is a program that translates keystrokes into binary encoded text, and also translates that binary encoded text into pixels for the screen or paper so you can read it. The compiler does sort of the same thing, except it translates binary encoded text into machine instructions, which are binary-encoded instructions that the computer actually does understand. The text expected is very formally specified and the translation fails if there is a single deviation from the formal specification. Word processors are not so harsh.
Binary encoding means zeros and ones, not so much dots and lines, which sounds a bit like Morse code. Morse is a valid way of encoding text, but not what computers tend to use. The old acoustic modems used dots and dashes to send data over phone lines, but the code was a different one than Morse.
Language, whatever it is,is physical and chemical. It is produced by our mouths and hands. And understood by our ears and brains.
Well, It is pretty electrical and magnetic with computers. That is a physical thing, as are chemical signals or air pressure waves or hand-gestures.
Now, forums like this one are metaphysically-bent and they will never abandon the idea that the separation between mind and body is merely cultural (and linguistic - but this requires deeper debate) choice.
I was not attempting any metaphysical assertion in my responses about what a compiler does. It it your intent to explore this avenue? If I wanted to talk to the ants, I would need something that translates back and forth between our languages. The compiler does that for human-to-machine language (only in one direction, there being a different program that attempts the reverse translation). The compiler allows me to tell the computer what to do using human text which is more understandable to humans.
Now, if we are capable of understanding how helium works when in meets oxygen, why it gets so difficult when we try to understand how compilers, languages, humans, computers work together, when they meet?
A matter of complexity I guess. A computer language has a precise definition and theoretically determined behavior, but that doesn't mean predictable behavior, as shown by Godel.

User avatar
EMTe
Posts: 784
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher
Location: Cracow

Re: How compilers work

Post by EMTe » May 23rd, 2018, 7:18 pm

I'm a bit anthropologically bent if this is the correct term as you probably correctly assumed that I am not a native English speaker. :) I am not only interested in what is the current understanding of certain philosophical standpoint, but also how certain people have been lead by other people or by their HARD (health, sexual trouble) physical background to understand things as they appear - in web or in local communities. This puts me frequently in conflict with people who just read sentences and seem to forget that they have cultural background and they just treat sentences "as they appear". For example, I am open to understand Hawking's philosophical standpoints judged from his health issues. Every Nietzsche needs his Overbeck. Webforums are not prepared for this I'm afraid. Human contact is imminent sooner or later, especially that knowledge is just a human invention, good for picking up girls, wrong for discovering things. Rocks discover things better as they travel along The Universe unaware they do it etc etc. Anyway.

To the point.

"The computer itself probably contains no hardware"

Explain this. Please differentiate between software and hardware, also if there is any real difference (like, between text and form).

"The compiler does sort of the same thing, except it translates binary encoded text into machine instructions"

It's the same explanation, over and over. Compiler does this, machine does this, human does that. The issue is, I am getting this weird message from my brain that it's not really an issue. The issue is how does electrical and magnetic becomes cultural and understandable.

It's no longer whether philosophy students understand Wittgenstein, more about, how does it happen that symbols become pathways to follow.

Computer architecture is a fine Von Neumann thingy, but what if it's just a cultural issue and we need new understanding

--sorry, I need to check another messenfer
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 132
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by Halc » May 25th, 2018, 9:41 am

EMTe wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 7:18 pm
"The computer itself probably contains no hardware"

Explain this.
The explanation is that this is a sentence fragment that seems to completely alter the meaning of the sentence from which it was extracted.
Please differentiate between software and hardware, also if there is any real difference (like, between text and form).
Hardware is circuitry and physical media. Software is part of the state of that hardware. But 'software' typically refers to instructional information, not just any information. Media is like paper, and software is the instructional information printed on it. A picture of a cat is 'data' on that paper, but not particularly instructional. This is a literal answer, which is perhaps not that which you seek.
It's no longer whether philosophy students understand Wittgenstein, more about, how does it happen that symbols become pathways to follow.
I don't think the answer you seek are going to come from me. Perhaps another can answer.

I envision IKEA furniture assembly instructions or the output of a mobile nav device, both of which are symbols meant to become pathways to follow.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 296
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by SimpleGuy » May 25th, 2018, 2:54 pm

Halc wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 9:41 am
EMTe wrote:
May 23rd, 2018, 7:18 pm
"The computer itself probably contains no hardware"
I envision IKEA furniture assembly instructions or the output of a mobile nav device, both of which are symbols meant to become pathways to follow.
And as well as teh IKEA funiture assembly instructions as well as the algorithm for calculating stock option prices should be written in a metalanguage so that both are indifferent in their content. This is the vision of a brilliant future. By the way have you made your wiener
chaos decomposition funiture up ?

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 296
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by SimpleGuy » May 25th, 2018, 3:18 pm

We should categorize talks in forums and in social media after chatbot characteristics and analyze their social behaviour after the chatbot predictions.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 662
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 25th, 2018, 3:42 pm

Scott wrote:
July 30th, 2012, 8:16 pm
Interesting topic!
I suspect human reliance on inefficient verbal language is symptomatic of one of the ways modern computers are superior to humans.
"Superior"?
You are comparing chalk and cheese; taking a description of two things which do different things and bare almost no purpose or quality in common and applying an irrelevant value judgement.
You might as well compare helium and paint and declare paint superior for decorating your siting room.
Computers are designed and created by humans and would not exist without them.

User avatar
EMTe
Posts: 784
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 5:58 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Jessica Fletcher
Location: Cracow

Re: How compilers work

Post by EMTe » May 29th, 2018, 6:46 pm

Halc wrote:Hardware is circuitry and physical media. Software is part of the state of that hardware.
Here you are wrong and probably you'll be wrong for the remainder of your life. Both are circuitries and totally physical.
Halc wrote:instructional information
Physical. "Instructions", "informations" are not different from hardware just because they are "run", while hardware "stands still". It's all the same. What you consider as movement or what you consider being operated by something or being operated while something else does this or that or that something (human) gives instructions to computer is totally arbitrary (in this case - anthropocentric). If The Universe is huge compueter maybe it gives instructions to us humans? Why not? Because forum admin says "human gives commands to computers?"

Philosophy, why I hate it, is now, in XXI century dead, because it's no longer open-minded. It (through academic philosophers) tries to defend itself as a scholary discipline rather to promote openness and freedom (as it should).

If the sentence "I no

[SORRY, I HAVE TO LOG OFF} hear you soon
The penultimate goal of the human is to howl like the wolf.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 132
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by Halc » May 29th, 2018, 7:12 pm

EMTe wrote:
May 29th, 2018, 6:46 pm
Here you are wrong and probably you'll be wrong for the remainder of your life. Both are circuitries and totally physical.
Oh dear. I think I'll need to update my resume, having been deluded into thinking there was a distinction.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 296
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: How compilers work

Post by SimpleGuy » June 2nd, 2018, 1:46 pm

EMTe wrote:
May 29th, 2018, 6:46 pm
Halc wrote:Hardware is circuitry and physical media. Software is part of the state of that hardware.
Here you are wrong and probably you'll be wrong for the remainder of your life. Both are circuitries and totally physical.
Halc wrote:instructional information
Physical. "Instructions", "informations" are not different from hardware just because they are "run", while hardware "stands still". It's all the same. What you consider as movement or what you consider being operated by something or being operated while something else does this or that or that something (human) gives instructions to computer is totally arbitrary (in this case - anthropocentric). If The Universe is huge compueter maybe it gives instructions to us humans? Why not? Because forum admin says "human gives commands to computers?"

Philosophy, why I hate it, is now, in XXI century dead, because it's no longer open-minded. It (through academic philosophers) tries to defend itself as a scholary discipline rather to promote openness and freedom (as it should).

If the sentence "I no

[SORRY, I HAVE TO LOG OFF} hear you soon
You probably don't think on the java VM , machine that makes java run on almost every computer. Hardware and software are for sometime time within a limited scope at least interchangable if this process of implementation (like in the java vm ) carries on.

Post Reply