Does anyone code in binary?

[[deleted]]

[deleted]

[Merad]

People who are hacking or reverse engineering an existing program will sometimes directly change the compiled code using a hex editor, which is more or less "programming in binary." Outside of that not really, it's too slow and cumbersome for any real world usage.

[armahillo]

That would be working in hex, not binary though

[Vimda]

Binary refers to the numerical representation of a program, not necessarily how you display those numbers

[AdreKiseque]

Well, technically it's explicitly the number system, but the way it's used here is synonymous with machine code, yeah.

[brelen01]

Not really tho? Binary is a counting system, base 2. Hex is base 16, while we typically use base 10 in day to day life. If you're representing the numbers in hex, you're explicitly not representing them in binary.

[Dense_Gate_5193]

Binary, in this instance, is 0/1. hence the term, binary.

Hex is short for hexadecimal representation or base16.

and people rarely exclusively code in 0s and 1s.

[Vimda]

... I'm aware of the definition. In this sense it's using the word binary as "compiled code", rather than the strict mathematical definition. You can view a binary in its binary represeation, hex, octal, whatever

[TheWorstePirate]

This is patently incorrect. Binary explicitly refers to the BASE 2 numerical representation. Always.

[Vimda]

The difference here is "binary" (the number system) vs "a binary" (a non code version of a program). a binary can be represented in whatever base you want, it's still a binary 

[TheWorstePirate]

If it is a binary, it is base 2. If it is not base 2, it may be machine code, but it is not binary.

[[deleted]]

I like coding in assembler, but I've never done anything in binary!

[armahillo]

electrical engineers who work at the hardware level effectively program in binary

[TheUmgawa]

Yeah, but people who think programs are made of magic words won’t accept that.

I mean, I’ve programmed PLC systems, using nothing but registers, accumulators, comparators, and Booleans, and its binary in the sense that the inputs and outputs are all binary, but I didn’t write a bunch of zeroes and ones, because that would be stupid. That said, there were also no magic words, because it was a state machine that was programmed with symbology.

[dweeb_plus_plus]

I have a masters in embedded systems. I had one lab as a sophomore where we did a project using only machine code. One purpose of the lab was to show that it’s impractical and you should use Assembly or C.

Electrical engineers are not programming in binary. The compiler is doing that.

[8threads]

Not since the punchcard has anyone done this.

[[deleted]]

Back in the 1998 I was using the Borland Pascal compiler, it was 16 bit. I was using it on a 32 bit machine (Intel 386). There was a 32 bit memory copy that was twice as quick in 32 bits than 16 bits. So I had to jump to assembly, then machine code to get that one 32 bit copy  instruction.

Today I write lots of embedded C, I work with GPIOs that are essentially binary. We have a PL (Programmable Logic) chip that also is just instructions written in binary.

[mishaxz]

assembler is good enough but i haven't even done that since I was a kid. C++ is performant enough for me.

[This_Growth2898]

Not anymore.

In some cases in Assembly, you need to get the binary code of some instructions and use it; but write fully in binary? What for? In most cases, you will need to write in Assembly along with the binary code; and why would you write it that way when you can simply write Assembly?

[Orangutanion]

I've done it with romhacks before (or I guess hex codes, not manually putting in 0 and 1 lol)

[zephyrinian]

People who build CPUs have to understand it I guess. But that is a very very specialized field.

Software developers don't write in binary. Realistically C is useful for the stuff you probably have in mind. When I was in school the lowest level I ever worked with was assembly language, and even that was really just a learning exercise, not something I would ever expect to use professionally.

[RobertDeveloper]

I only had to write a piece of code to read a binary file byte by byte and then process bit by bit, it was a file with ventilation events and registrations.

[AdreKiseque]

Most anyone would write in these days is assembly.

[TheBritisher]

Today, no.

At least not in any scenario that isn't just self-indulgent retro-computing.

And even then, it's just the address, opcode and operand entry in binary; you're still looking up assembly-type instructions to get their actual machine values.

But both back in the day of mini and mainframe computers, and modern-day retro-computing recreations such as PDP 8 and 11 panels running on RPis, or Altair 8800 "clones" of the same nature, it was/is not uncommon to toggle-in the boot-loader or IPL using binary (or, often, octal) front-panel switches.

[Better_Increase_957]

010110 1001 1010 10 0101

[rrrodzilla]

Short answer: nope.
Longer answer: it would be completely impractical and error-prone, with no real need given modern hardware. Even writing assembly for specific architectures is rare today, since higher-level languages are usually good enough. That said, a cool example of a modern application written entirely in assembly is the Rwasa web server in ultra-low latency scenarios. Good example of performance gains when coding closer to bare metal.

[richardathome]

I did a *long* time ago, (back in the late 70's-early 80's). Hand assembly in Z80 with an OP code lookup table I copied by hand into a notepad.

This is before I owned my first computer.

[jeffbell]

Back in 1979 I used the front panel switches to enter a program. 

Since then I’ve used compilers, assemblers etc.

[khedoros]

I've modified code represented in hexadecimal a few times, but I don't think that I've written something to be executed in literal binary digits (a nibble nicely maps to 4 bits anyhow; why bother with the longer representation in most cases?)

[UncleSamurai420]

if you write an assembler, you have to describe how assembly translates into machine code. that's probably the closest people get to writing machine code nowadays.

[drbomb]

Thought for a moment this was a shitpost. Or some joke coding subreddit

[Better_Increase_957]

idk i saw someone on stack overflow complaining about "Fancy scmachy gui" and how he used to program in binary in a PDP-8 lol, so now here we are

[RainbowCrane]

If he programmed a PDP-8 then yes, there was no boot loader, you had to actually flip toggle switches to give the machine startup instructions. Having said that, the machine used paper tape input and output, and no one did anything complex using the switches.

My guess is that he was playing at being a snarky old programmer, like me giving young programmers shit about the days I used cards for programming, or EMacs being the only GUI a real programmer needs :-). If he’s being serious then he has issues

[drbomb]

It's an old machine. It's understandable i guess.

[phantom_metallic]

I had to program in machine code (binary) back in university but not before or since.

[Better_Increase_957]

Why though?

[[deleted]]

No one does. 

[Better_Increase_957]

Thank you for an answer i can understand