Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.svg

This entry has passed Wiktionary's verification process without prejudice.

This means that, while adequate citation may not have been recorded, discussion has concluded that usage is widespread and content is accurate
Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so. See Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion


Sense one is, from my experience, out and out wrong. There is no specific word for what is described, it's either "a standalone program" or, rarely, "a standalone executable". House 09:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, it's sense two that's out-and-out wrong (and I've now added an RFV-sense for that one). Sense one is the sense of this term, as far as I'm aware (though our definition isn't wonderfully written, as it lends itself to misinterpretation as forbidding the existence of an underlying operating system and/or of dynamically linked libraries). —RuakhTALK 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm, interesting. Every system I've used in the last 30 years an executable is something that you run in conjunction with various libraries held as part of the OS as well as such other things as databases. Sense one specificaly disallows because in most cases the executable requires some kind of support. Definition two allows it. An executable is any collection of bits that the computer can execute whether or not the call OS libraries, databases, dll's or whatever. Moglex 19:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; as I said, the definition needs to be rewritten, because it makes it sound like it's excluding OS and DLL support. But so far as I'm aware, sense #2 simply does not exist; a Perl or PHP or Python or Ruby or BASIC source file is not an executable in my book. —RuakhTALK 22:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are absolutely correct. My definition two is as bad as def. one in that it's far too inclusive. When I mentioned interpreter I was purely thinking of a p-code interpreter. I've rewritten both the def's there, perhaps you could have a look and see if you think either is adequate. Moglex 08:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I certainly think at least one of these is correct, but am not sure which. I don't really think of p-code files as "executables", but then, I never use them (I'm not a Javanite, and am happy with m-files in Matlab); people who regularly compile Java code to JVM p-code could be excused for considering the latter to be executable. I guess we'll have to use RFV for its intended purpose and dig up clarifying cites. :-(   —RuakhTALK 18:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm by no means certain - I've never used p-code either. I included it because in Pascal the p-code fulfills the 'executable' in the source-object-executable model. I'll have a snoop around GBS and see what I can dig up. Moglex 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In the source-object-executable model, p-code is more like object code. For this entry, (for future reference,) using {{rfc}} or {{rft}} might be better. It's not like you want the wrong one verified; instead you'd like the definition(s) rewritten correctly (right?) --Connel MacKenzie 04:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The technical difference betwenn object code and executable p-code is that object code can contain symbolic and other information relevant to linking. The p-code output from a linker never does (which is not to say that a compiler cannot generate p-code with symbolic information embedded, but that would be an object file rather than an executable. Mr rather pedantic inclusion of p-code was because you can have an executable that contains p-code, not that all p-code formed executables. The main objection to the original article was the inclusion of the requirement that the code be "stand-alone" which was incorrect. Moglex 13:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


A debate between a coworker and I led me here.

I pronounce it eks-eck-you-ta-bull, with no real heightened syllable and the first two syllable said speedily. He pronounces it eks-eck-QUEUE-ta-bull, with the middle syllable most stressed and no speed-up.

I listened to the Merriam-Webster online pronunciation and it is very close to my coworker's. However, we are both Canadian, if that makes any difference. How is this pronounced in the UK?

Thanks, -- 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)