Antonym of “Portable” in the context of a computer programme?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
First, some background information...
In terminology regarding computer programmes, the term portable typically means being operational without having to install. In more advanced speak, it's where a programme can be used without it affecting the system registry in any way.
Typically, the portable application (an EXE file), along with all the supporting files necessary for the programme to properly run¹, is stored in a single folder (downloadable as a zip file). In this respect, it's considered portable because it's self-contained, and as such can be used on any computer the folder is located on.
In comparison, most programmes that people use are actually installed on the specific computer itself, so that the system registry is changed, and the EXE—along with all the necessary supporting files—is stored in the "Program Files" director(y)(ies)² in your main hard drive (usually C:/
but can be any other drive you choose). In this way, it's not considered "portable" because it's tied to that specific computer.
Now, the question...
I want to know if there is an antonym in computing jargon for portable. In other words, I'd like to know if there's a word out there that means "non-portable" in the sense described above. (Other than non-portable. Obviously. Also, I'm aware "installed" is an appropriate candidate. I'd like to know if there is another term not so ad hoc-y.)
It can be either common or rare, but must be actually in use (i.e., not made up on the spot here at EL&U). If there is no word, that's fine; just tell me. I don't want a made-up word; I want a word that's actually used, even if only a little bit.
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application
, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application
, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)
¹ DLLs, PNG/JPG/BMPs, INIs, etc.
² In Windows, it's usually (if not always) either Program Files
or Program Files (x86)
, depending on whether you install the 64-bit or 32-bit version of said programme, respectively.
single-word-requests terminology antonyms computer
|
show 5 more comments
First, some background information...
In terminology regarding computer programmes, the term portable typically means being operational without having to install. In more advanced speak, it's where a programme can be used without it affecting the system registry in any way.
Typically, the portable application (an EXE file), along with all the supporting files necessary for the programme to properly run¹, is stored in a single folder (downloadable as a zip file). In this respect, it's considered portable because it's self-contained, and as such can be used on any computer the folder is located on.
In comparison, most programmes that people use are actually installed on the specific computer itself, so that the system registry is changed, and the EXE—along with all the necessary supporting files—is stored in the "Program Files" director(y)(ies)² in your main hard drive (usually C:/
but can be any other drive you choose). In this way, it's not considered "portable" because it's tied to that specific computer.
Now, the question...
I want to know if there is an antonym in computing jargon for portable. In other words, I'd like to know if there's a word out there that means "non-portable" in the sense described above. (Other than non-portable. Obviously. Also, I'm aware "installed" is an appropriate candidate. I'd like to know if there is another term not so ad hoc-y.)
It can be either common or rare, but must be actually in use (i.e., not made up on the spot here at EL&U). If there is no word, that's fine; just tell me. I don't want a made-up word; I want a word that's actually used, even if only a little bit.
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application
, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application
, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)
¹ DLLs, PNG/JPG/BMPs, INIs, etc.
² In Windows, it's usually (if not always) either Program Files
or Program Files (x86)
, depending on whether you install the 64-bit or 32-bit version of said programme, respectively.
single-word-requests terminology antonyms computer
2
In what sense the term you are looking for would be different from "installed"?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:30
5
Note this is not a normal CS use of the word portable - portable software usually means can be run on differing Operating Systems and or hardware
– Mark
Aug 30 '15 at 20:42
@Josh61: This should patently obvious from what I posted. I explicitly said what sense I meant.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 20:51
1
Why wouldn't an "installed app" be the opposite of a "portable" one?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:53
1
@SarahofGaia- Please define what you mean by ad hoc- I don't think calling a non-portable app as an installed app is in any way ad hoc.
– Jim
Aug 30 '15 at 22:36
|
show 5 more comments
First, some background information...
In terminology regarding computer programmes, the term portable typically means being operational without having to install. In more advanced speak, it's where a programme can be used without it affecting the system registry in any way.
Typically, the portable application (an EXE file), along with all the supporting files necessary for the programme to properly run¹, is stored in a single folder (downloadable as a zip file). In this respect, it's considered portable because it's self-contained, and as such can be used on any computer the folder is located on.
In comparison, most programmes that people use are actually installed on the specific computer itself, so that the system registry is changed, and the EXE—along with all the necessary supporting files—is stored in the "Program Files" director(y)(ies)² in your main hard drive (usually C:/
but can be any other drive you choose). In this way, it's not considered "portable" because it's tied to that specific computer.
Now, the question...
I want to know if there is an antonym in computing jargon for portable. In other words, I'd like to know if there's a word out there that means "non-portable" in the sense described above. (Other than non-portable. Obviously. Also, I'm aware "installed" is an appropriate candidate. I'd like to know if there is another term not so ad hoc-y.)
It can be either common or rare, but must be actually in use (i.e., not made up on the spot here at EL&U). If there is no word, that's fine; just tell me. I don't want a made-up word; I want a word that's actually used, even if only a little bit.
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application
, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application
, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)
¹ DLLs, PNG/JPG/BMPs, INIs, etc.
² In Windows, it's usually (if not always) either Program Files
or Program Files (x86)
, depending on whether you install the 64-bit or 32-bit version of said programme, respectively.
single-word-requests terminology antonyms computer
First, some background information...
In terminology regarding computer programmes, the term portable typically means being operational without having to install. In more advanced speak, it's where a programme can be used without it affecting the system registry in any way.
Typically, the portable application (an EXE file), along with all the supporting files necessary for the programme to properly run¹, is stored in a single folder (downloadable as a zip file). In this respect, it's considered portable because it's self-contained, and as such can be used on any computer the folder is located on.
In comparison, most programmes that people use are actually installed on the specific computer itself, so that the system registry is changed, and the EXE—along with all the necessary supporting files—is stored in the "Program Files" director(y)(ies)² in your main hard drive (usually C:/
but can be any other drive you choose). In this way, it's not considered "portable" because it's tied to that specific computer.
Now, the question...
I want to know if there is an antonym in computing jargon for portable. In other words, I'd like to know if there's a word out there that means "non-portable" in the sense described above. (Other than non-portable. Obviously. Also, I'm aware "installed" is an appropriate candidate. I'd like to know if there is another term not so ad hoc-y.)
It can be either common or rare, but must be actually in use (i.e., not made up on the spot here at EL&U). If there is no word, that's fine; just tell me. I don't want a made-up word; I want a word that's actually used, even if only a little bit.
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application
, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application
, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)
¹ DLLs, PNG/JPG/BMPs, INIs, etc.
² In Windows, it's usually (if not always) either Program Files
or Program Files (x86)
, depending on whether you install the 64-bit or 32-bit version of said programme, respectively.
single-word-requests terminology antonyms computer
single-word-requests terminology antonyms computer
edited Aug 30 '15 at 21:01
SarahofGaia
asked Aug 30 '15 at 20:22
SarahofGaiaSarahofGaia
3791416
3791416
2
In what sense the term you are looking for would be different from "installed"?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:30
5
Note this is not a normal CS use of the word portable - portable software usually means can be run on differing Operating Systems and or hardware
– Mark
Aug 30 '15 at 20:42
@Josh61: This should patently obvious from what I posted. I explicitly said what sense I meant.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 20:51
1
Why wouldn't an "installed app" be the opposite of a "portable" one?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:53
1
@SarahofGaia- Please define what you mean by ad hoc- I don't think calling a non-portable app as an installed app is in any way ad hoc.
– Jim
Aug 30 '15 at 22:36
|
show 5 more comments
2
In what sense the term you are looking for would be different from "installed"?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:30
5
Note this is not a normal CS use of the word portable - portable software usually means can be run on differing Operating Systems and or hardware
– Mark
Aug 30 '15 at 20:42
@Josh61: This should patently obvious from what I posted. I explicitly said what sense I meant.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 20:51
1
Why wouldn't an "installed app" be the opposite of a "portable" one?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:53
1
@SarahofGaia- Please define what you mean by ad hoc- I don't think calling a non-portable app as an installed app is in any way ad hoc.
– Jim
Aug 30 '15 at 22:36
2
2
In what sense the term you are looking for would be different from "installed"?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:30
In what sense the term you are looking for would be different from "installed"?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:30
5
5
Note this is not a normal CS use of the word portable - portable software usually means can be run on differing Operating Systems and or hardware
– Mark
Aug 30 '15 at 20:42
Note this is not a normal CS use of the word portable - portable software usually means can be run on differing Operating Systems and or hardware
– Mark
Aug 30 '15 at 20:42
@Josh61: This should patently obvious from what I posted. I explicitly said what sense I meant.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 20:51
@Josh61: This should patently obvious from what I posted. I explicitly said what sense I meant.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 20:51
1
1
Why wouldn't an "installed app" be the opposite of a "portable" one?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:53
Why wouldn't an "installed app" be the opposite of a "portable" one?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:53
1
1
@SarahofGaia- Please define what you mean by ad hoc- I don't think calling a non-portable app as an installed app is in any way ad hoc.
– Jim
Aug 30 '15 at 22:36
@SarahofGaia- Please define what you mean by ad hoc- I don't think calling a non-portable app as an installed app is in any way ad hoc.
– Jim
Aug 30 '15 at 22:36
|
show 5 more comments
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
I think that an installed application is the "opposite" of a portable one:
Portable application (portable app), sometimes also called standalone,:
- is a program designed to run on a compatible computer without being installed in a way that modifies the computer's configuration information. This type of application can be stored on any storage device, including internal mass storage and external storage such as USB drives and floppy disks – storing its program files and any configuration information and data on the storage medium alone.
Installation (or setup) of a computer program (including device drivers and plugins):
- is the act of making the program ready for execution. Because the process varies for each program and each computer, programs (including operating systems) often come with an installer, a specialized program responsible for doing whatever is needed for their installation. Installation may be part of a larger software deployment process.
Wikipedia
Is it better to run portable apps software instead of installing the full version on the computer?
Are there any performance problems running portable apps?Installed vs. Portable Programs,
Discussion .
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
add a comment |
Adjective hardwired (comparative more hardwired, superlative most hardwired)
- (electronics) Designed to perform a specific task.
- (electronic communications) Of devices, closely or tightly coupled.
- (computing) Having a fixed placement (on a screen format for example.)
Not changeable.
Verb
hard code (third-person singular simple present hard codes, present participle hard coding, simple past and past participle hard coded)
- (computing) To build absolute and unchangeable values into a program such that they can only be changed by modifying the source code and recompiling.
- (computing) To insert an unchangeable program into a device; to hard-wire.
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
1
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
add a comment |
This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics.
There are a spectrum of constraints to cause non-portability of software. However, let's presume being firmware is not within the scope of your question.
Non-relocatable software.
Read up on compiled-code relocation. When references in compiled-software are resolved and linked during installation, then you cannot bring an instance of a software compiled on one computer and expect it to run on another, as it would encounter "unresolved references" errors. Even though the resources referenced are present, but the "addresses" of entry points to those resources may not be the same from computer to computer.
That is opposed to dynamically linked software, where there exists an intermediary during loading of the software (initial process of running software) to map the resource references to the actual addresses of the entry points of those resources. But first, the software must comply to the conventions of such an intermediary in order for that intermediary to "understand" the need for reference relocation during code loading.
Platform-bound software.
We know that
- software built specifically for JDK 7 will probably not run on JDK 4 or earlier.
- a C program built for Windows x86 will not run on Linux x86.
- a C program built for Linux will not run on Solaris.
- an application built for JEE platform will not run on JSE platform, without a JEE container.
Resource-bound software
We know that
- software built on Windows .NET will not run on another Windows system that does not have .NET appropriately installed.
- a perl script that references Windows resources, will encounter "unresolved references" errors when run on Linux or Solaris, unless there are resource mockers or emulators to receive linkage to such resources. Regardless that Perl scripts are highly portable as a language across many platforms, provided that the Perl platform is installed.
Installation-bound software
- Even though there might exist an intermediary, their references by the software must first be "registered" in a registry, because that is where the intermediary expects to find the mapping references.
- Resources are not installed in the same location for every computer. Some people like to install a resource at "/program files/oracle/11", sometimes at "/oracle/11". Sometimes they have only a 32bit version in a 64bit Windows at /program files (x86)/oracle/11". Sometimes they only have an earlier but adequate version of the resource at "/oracle/10".
I think that
the answer to your question could be non-relocatable software.
However, it is too technically imprecise a term. The answer should be installation-bound software, where binding to resources occur during installation of a piece of software.
Such that even though there exists an intermediary, their references and resolution must be "registered" in a registry.
Installation-bound would also include non-relocatable constraints.
Regardless that software compiled for latter Windows version are compelled to include relocation tables to facilitate relocation, I understand that device driver software may be written in a way which is not relocatable, but linked/resolved during installation.
That is especially true with OS-bound device drivers in any *nix OS (linux, solaris, aix, macOS, unix).
Also, some software actually install and bind their customized device drivers to the OS. Some software use/abuse the device driver facility to install their features as a pseudo-device driver.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
1
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
|
show 1 more comment
Speaking as a programmer by trade, with decades of experience, the most common antonym I encounter by far to portable is simply non-portable.
I've never heard portable software used to refer to being operational without having to install. Portable software, rather, is software that runs on any platform with a minimum of extra work - either it's available as one of several compiled versions the user can download and run, or the source code is available and can be compiled on any platform, presumably with a single command or action. If it's available in multiple compiled forms (i.e., an EXE, SH, etc.), then that may still result in an installation step, but the software is still considered portable, because the same source code was (probably) used to produce both downloadable binaries. It's portable even if it modifies a Windows registry, drops a script for itself in /etc/init
, et cetera.
The term that would most closely mean operational without having to install would probably be ready-to-run, but in general, I never even encounter this meaning, let alone as a one-word term, nor its antonym.
add a comment |
Within the very particular context you provided, I would respectfully offer the hyphenated term "platform-specific."
This meets the criteria you established here;
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)"
A platform-specific application is one that runs only under particular hardware or specific operating system. This is in contrast to a portable application, which can run in a variety of environments.
Now, having offered that, I know of very few applications that would realistically fall under your constraint. Even a Java application would require a Java runtime or full JVM. Web applications execute in the context of both a web server and the client browser, but the application itself isn't changing execution environments in the context you describe.
add a comment |
Perhaps local ? Or some kind of a derrivation from that word.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f270220%2fantonym-of-portable-in-the-context-of-a-computer-programme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
6 Answers
6
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think that an installed application is the "opposite" of a portable one:
Portable application (portable app), sometimes also called standalone,:
- is a program designed to run on a compatible computer without being installed in a way that modifies the computer's configuration information. This type of application can be stored on any storage device, including internal mass storage and external storage such as USB drives and floppy disks – storing its program files and any configuration information and data on the storage medium alone.
Installation (or setup) of a computer program (including device drivers and plugins):
- is the act of making the program ready for execution. Because the process varies for each program and each computer, programs (including operating systems) often come with an installer, a specialized program responsible for doing whatever is needed for their installation. Installation may be part of a larger software deployment process.
Wikipedia
Is it better to run portable apps software instead of installing the full version on the computer?
Are there any performance problems running portable apps?Installed vs. Portable Programs,
Discussion .
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
add a comment |
I think that an installed application is the "opposite" of a portable one:
Portable application (portable app), sometimes also called standalone,:
- is a program designed to run on a compatible computer without being installed in a way that modifies the computer's configuration information. This type of application can be stored on any storage device, including internal mass storage and external storage such as USB drives and floppy disks – storing its program files and any configuration information and data on the storage medium alone.
Installation (or setup) of a computer program (including device drivers and plugins):
- is the act of making the program ready for execution. Because the process varies for each program and each computer, programs (including operating systems) often come with an installer, a specialized program responsible for doing whatever is needed for their installation. Installation may be part of a larger software deployment process.
Wikipedia
Is it better to run portable apps software instead of installing the full version on the computer?
Are there any performance problems running portable apps?Installed vs. Portable Programs,
Discussion .
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
add a comment |
I think that an installed application is the "opposite" of a portable one:
Portable application (portable app), sometimes also called standalone,:
- is a program designed to run on a compatible computer without being installed in a way that modifies the computer's configuration information. This type of application can be stored on any storage device, including internal mass storage and external storage such as USB drives and floppy disks – storing its program files and any configuration information and data on the storage medium alone.
Installation (or setup) of a computer program (including device drivers and plugins):
- is the act of making the program ready for execution. Because the process varies for each program and each computer, programs (including operating systems) often come with an installer, a specialized program responsible for doing whatever is needed for their installation. Installation may be part of a larger software deployment process.
Wikipedia
Is it better to run portable apps software instead of installing the full version on the computer?
Are there any performance problems running portable apps?Installed vs. Portable Programs,
Discussion .
I think that an installed application is the "opposite" of a portable one:
Portable application (portable app), sometimes also called standalone,:
- is a program designed to run on a compatible computer without being installed in a way that modifies the computer's configuration information. This type of application can be stored on any storage device, including internal mass storage and external storage such as USB drives and floppy disks – storing its program files and any configuration information and data on the storage medium alone.
Installation (or setup) of a computer program (including device drivers and plugins):
- is the act of making the program ready for execution. Because the process varies for each program and each computer, programs (including operating systems) often come with an installer, a specialized program responsible for doing whatever is needed for their installation. Installation may be part of a larger software deployment process.
Wikipedia
Is it better to run portable apps software instead of installing the full version on the computer?
Are there any performance problems running portable apps?Installed vs. Portable Programs,
Discussion .
edited Aug 30 '15 at 21:11
answered Aug 30 '15 at 20:57
user66974
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
add a comment |
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
Good answer, but see my comment above in response to Josh61. And thanks, I just edited my question to clarify.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:02
add a comment |
Adjective hardwired (comparative more hardwired, superlative most hardwired)
- (electronics) Designed to perform a specific task.
- (electronic communications) Of devices, closely or tightly coupled.
- (computing) Having a fixed placement (on a screen format for example.)
Not changeable.
Verb
hard code (third-person singular simple present hard codes, present participle hard coding, simple past and past participle hard coded)
- (computing) To build absolute and unchangeable values into a program such that they can only be changed by modifying the source code and recompiling.
- (computing) To insert an unchangeable program into a device; to hard-wire.
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
1
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
add a comment |
Adjective hardwired (comparative more hardwired, superlative most hardwired)
- (electronics) Designed to perform a specific task.
- (electronic communications) Of devices, closely or tightly coupled.
- (computing) Having a fixed placement (on a screen format for example.)
Not changeable.
Verb
hard code (third-person singular simple present hard codes, present participle hard coding, simple past and past participle hard coded)
- (computing) To build absolute and unchangeable values into a program such that they can only be changed by modifying the source code and recompiling.
- (computing) To insert an unchangeable program into a device; to hard-wire.
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
1
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
add a comment |
Adjective hardwired (comparative more hardwired, superlative most hardwired)
- (electronics) Designed to perform a specific task.
- (electronic communications) Of devices, closely or tightly coupled.
- (computing) Having a fixed placement (on a screen format for example.)
Not changeable.
Verb
hard code (third-person singular simple present hard codes, present participle hard coding, simple past and past participle hard coded)
- (computing) To build absolute and unchangeable values into a program such that they can only be changed by modifying the source code and recompiling.
- (computing) To insert an unchangeable program into a device; to hard-wire.
Adjective hardwired (comparative more hardwired, superlative most hardwired)
- (electronics) Designed to perform a specific task.
- (electronic communications) Of devices, closely or tightly coupled.
- (computing) Having a fixed placement (on a screen format for example.)
Not changeable.
Verb
hard code (third-person singular simple present hard codes, present participle hard coding, simple past and past participle hard coded)
- (computing) To build absolute and unchangeable values into a program such that they can only be changed by modifying the source code and recompiling.
- (computing) To insert an unchangeable program into a device; to hard-wire.
answered Aug 30 '15 at 21:01
IconDaemonIconDaemon
2,63211122
2,63211122
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
1
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
add a comment |
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
1
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Thanks for the answer, but regarding "hardwired", that's generally used to mean a modification of hardware. Installation of a programme is a software modification. So I'd really not like using that word as it can be misleading or confusing.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
Regarding "hard code", that's a verb; I specified in my question that I wanted an adjective.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 21:04
1
1
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
The past participle, "hard coded", serves as an adjective. If you insist on a single word, spell it hardcoded.
– Brian Hitchcock
Aug 31 '15 at 8:15
add a comment |
This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics.
There are a spectrum of constraints to cause non-portability of software. However, let's presume being firmware is not within the scope of your question.
Non-relocatable software.
Read up on compiled-code relocation. When references in compiled-software are resolved and linked during installation, then you cannot bring an instance of a software compiled on one computer and expect it to run on another, as it would encounter "unresolved references" errors. Even though the resources referenced are present, but the "addresses" of entry points to those resources may not be the same from computer to computer.
That is opposed to dynamically linked software, where there exists an intermediary during loading of the software (initial process of running software) to map the resource references to the actual addresses of the entry points of those resources. But first, the software must comply to the conventions of such an intermediary in order for that intermediary to "understand" the need for reference relocation during code loading.
Platform-bound software.
We know that
- software built specifically for JDK 7 will probably not run on JDK 4 or earlier.
- a C program built for Windows x86 will not run on Linux x86.
- a C program built for Linux will not run on Solaris.
- an application built for JEE platform will not run on JSE platform, without a JEE container.
Resource-bound software
We know that
- software built on Windows .NET will not run on another Windows system that does not have .NET appropriately installed.
- a perl script that references Windows resources, will encounter "unresolved references" errors when run on Linux or Solaris, unless there are resource mockers or emulators to receive linkage to such resources. Regardless that Perl scripts are highly portable as a language across many platforms, provided that the Perl platform is installed.
Installation-bound software
- Even though there might exist an intermediary, their references by the software must first be "registered" in a registry, because that is where the intermediary expects to find the mapping references.
- Resources are not installed in the same location for every computer. Some people like to install a resource at "/program files/oracle/11", sometimes at "/oracle/11". Sometimes they have only a 32bit version in a 64bit Windows at /program files (x86)/oracle/11". Sometimes they only have an earlier but adequate version of the resource at "/oracle/10".
I think that
the answer to your question could be non-relocatable software.
However, it is too technically imprecise a term. The answer should be installation-bound software, where binding to resources occur during installation of a piece of software.
Such that even though there exists an intermediary, their references and resolution must be "registered" in a registry.
Installation-bound would also include non-relocatable constraints.
Regardless that software compiled for latter Windows version are compelled to include relocation tables to facilitate relocation, I understand that device driver software may be written in a way which is not relocatable, but linked/resolved during installation.
That is especially true with OS-bound device drivers in any *nix OS (linux, solaris, aix, macOS, unix).
Also, some software actually install and bind their customized device drivers to the OS. Some software use/abuse the device driver facility to install their features as a pseudo-device driver.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
1
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
|
show 1 more comment
This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics.
There are a spectrum of constraints to cause non-portability of software. However, let's presume being firmware is not within the scope of your question.
Non-relocatable software.
Read up on compiled-code relocation. When references in compiled-software are resolved and linked during installation, then you cannot bring an instance of a software compiled on one computer and expect it to run on another, as it would encounter "unresolved references" errors. Even though the resources referenced are present, but the "addresses" of entry points to those resources may not be the same from computer to computer.
That is opposed to dynamically linked software, where there exists an intermediary during loading of the software (initial process of running software) to map the resource references to the actual addresses of the entry points of those resources. But first, the software must comply to the conventions of such an intermediary in order for that intermediary to "understand" the need for reference relocation during code loading.
Platform-bound software.
We know that
- software built specifically for JDK 7 will probably not run on JDK 4 or earlier.
- a C program built for Windows x86 will not run on Linux x86.
- a C program built for Linux will not run on Solaris.
- an application built for JEE platform will not run on JSE platform, without a JEE container.
Resource-bound software
We know that
- software built on Windows .NET will not run on another Windows system that does not have .NET appropriately installed.
- a perl script that references Windows resources, will encounter "unresolved references" errors when run on Linux or Solaris, unless there are resource mockers or emulators to receive linkage to such resources. Regardless that Perl scripts are highly portable as a language across many platforms, provided that the Perl platform is installed.
Installation-bound software
- Even though there might exist an intermediary, their references by the software must first be "registered" in a registry, because that is where the intermediary expects to find the mapping references.
- Resources are not installed in the same location for every computer. Some people like to install a resource at "/program files/oracle/11", sometimes at "/oracle/11". Sometimes they have only a 32bit version in a 64bit Windows at /program files (x86)/oracle/11". Sometimes they only have an earlier but adequate version of the resource at "/oracle/10".
I think that
the answer to your question could be non-relocatable software.
However, it is too technically imprecise a term. The answer should be installation-bound software, where binding to resources occur during installation of a piece of software.
Such that even though there exists an intermediary, their references and resolution must be "registered" in a registry.
Installation-bound would also include non-relocatable constraints.
Regardless that software compiled for latter Windows version are compelled to include relocation tables to facilitate relocation, I understand that device driver software may be written in a way which is not relocatable, but linked/resolved during installation.
That is especially true with OS-bound device drivers in any *nix OS (linux, solaris, aix, macOS, unix).
Also, some software actually install and bind their customized device drivers to the OS. Some software use/abuse the device driver facility to install their features as a pseudo-device driver.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
1
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
|
show 1 more comment
This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics.
There are a spectrum of constraints to cause non-portability of software. However, let's presume being firmware is not within the scope of your question.
Non-relocatable software.
Read up on compiled-code relocation. When references in compiled-software are resolved and linked during installation, then you cannot bring an instance of a software compiled on one computer and expect it to run on another, as it would encounter "unresolved references" errors. Even though the resources referenced are present, but the "addresses" of entry points to those resources may not be the same from computer to computer.
That is opposed to dynamically linked software, where there exists an intermediary during loading of the software (initial process of running software) to map the resource references to the actual addresses of the entry points of those resources. But first, the software must comply to the conventions of such an intermediary in order for that intermediary to "understand" the need for reference relocation during code loading.
Platform-bound software.
We know that
- software built specifically for JDK 7 will probably not run on JDK 4 or earlier.
- a C program built for Windows x86 will not run on Linux x86.
- a C program built for Linux will not run on Solaris.
- an application built for JEE platform will not run on JSE platform, without a JEE container.
Resource-bound software
We know that
- software built on Windows .NET will not run on another Windows system that does not have .NET appropriately installed.
- a perl script that references Windows resources, will encounter "unresolved references" errors when run on Linux or Solaris, unless there are resource mockers or emulators to receive linkage to such resources. Regardless that Perl scripts are highly portable as a language across many platforms, provided that the Perl platform is installed.
Installation-bound software
- Even though there might exist an intermediary, their references by the software must first be "registered" in a registry, because that is where the intermediary expects to find the mapping references.
- Resources are not installed in the same location for every computer. Some people like to install a resource at "/program files/oracle/11", sometimes at "/oracle/11". Sometimes they have only a 32bit version in a 64bit Windows at /program files (x86)/oracle/11". Sometimes they only have an earlier but adequate version of the resource at "/oracle/10".
I think that
the answer to your question could be non-relocatable software.
However, it is too technically imprecise a term. The answer should be installation-bound software, where binding to resources occur during installation of a piece of software.
Such that even though there exists an intermediary, their references and resolution must be "registered" in a registry.
Installation-bound would also include non-relocatable constraints.
Regardless that software compiled for latter Windows version are compelled to include relocation tables to facilitate relocation, I understand that device driver software may be written in a way which is not relocatable, but linked/resolved during installation.
That is especially true with OS-bound device drivers in any *nix OS (linux, solaris, aix, macOS, unix).
Also, some software actually install and bind their customized device drivers to the OS. Some software use/abuse the device driver facility to install their features as a pseudo-device driver.
This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics.
There are a spectrum of constraints to cause non-portability of software. However, let's presume being firmware is not within the scope of your question.
Non-relocatable software.
Read up on compiled-code relocation. When references in compiled-software are resolved and linked during installation, then you cannot bring an instance of a software compiled on one computer and expect it to run on another, as it would encounter "unresolved references" errors. Even though the resources referenced are present, but the "addresses" of entry points to those resources may not be the same from computer to computer.
That is opposed to dynamically linked software, where there exists an intermediary during loading of the software (initial process of running software) to map the resource references to the actual addresses of the entry points of those resources. But first, the software must comply to the conventions of such an intermediary in order for that intermediary to "understand" the need for reference relocation during code loading.
Platform-bound software.
We know that
- software built specifically for JDK 7 will probably not run on JDK 4 or earlier.
- a C program built for Windows x86 will not run on Linux x86.
- a C program built for Linux will not run on Solaris.
- an application built for JEE platform will not run on JSE platform, without a JEE container.
Resource-bound software
We know that
- software built on Windows .NET will not run on another Windows system that does not have .NET appropriately installed.
- a perl script that references Windows resources, will encounter "unresolved references" errors when run on Linux or Solaris, unless there are resource mockers or emulators to receive linkage to such resources. Regardless that Perl scripts are highly portable as a language across many platforms, provided that the Perl platform is installed.
Installation-bound software
- Even though there might exist an intermediary, their references by the software must first be "registered" in a registry, because that is where the intermediary expects to find the mapping references.
- Resources are not installed in the same location for every computer. Some people like to install a resource at "/program files/oracle/11", sometimes at "/oracle/11". Sometimes they have only a 32bit version in a 64bit Windows at /program files (x86)/oracle/11". Sometimes they only have an earlier but adequate version of the resource at "/oracle/10".
I think that
the answer to your question could be non-relocatable software.
However, it is too technically imprecise a term. The answer should be installation-bound software, where binding to resources occur during installation of a piece of software.
Such that even though there exists an intermediary, their references and resolution must be "registered" in a registry.
Installation-bound would also include non-relocatable constraints.
Regardless that software compiled for latter Windows version are compelled to include relocation tables to facilitate relocation, I understand that device driver software may be written in a way which is not relocatable, but linked/resolved during installation.
That is especially true with OS-bound device drivers in any *nix OS (linux, solaris, aix, macOS, unix).
Also, some software actually install and bind their customized device drivers to the OS. Some software use/abuse the device driver facility to install their features as a pseudo-device driver.
edited Aug 31 '15 at 0:19
answered Aug 31 '15 at 0:09
Blessed GeekBlessed Geek
8,9751431
8,9751431
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
1
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
|
show 1 more comment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
1
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_binding
– Blessed Geek
Aug 31 '15 at 0:14
1
1
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
"This question should have been asked in the computer programming forum, because it requires expertise with computer software construction and dynamics." EL&U needs to have a damn position already on jargon, then. Because I asked about this on SU Meta and they suggested I go on EL&U, and then I read here on EL&U Meta about this topic.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:52
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
I even brought this concern up to SU Meta. On one hand, you could say you need special knowledge, so it'd be another site's domain, but on another I'm asking a/ common word usage, and that's EL&U's domain. Even here, there is no consensus, as I showed when quoting that Meta thread, It's pissing me off.
– SarahofGaia
Sep 7 '15 at 4:53
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
What you're up against here is a circular reference problem, which is typically a problem in computer programming. :-D (Seriously, though, I sympathize.)
– Paul Brinkley
Feb 13 '17 at 21:34
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
I've never heard the term "portable" used to mean a program that does not support relocation (PIC/PIE). You are also mixing up relocation and dynamic linking. The opposite of dynamic would be static, but the opposite of relocatable would not be. Still neither of those are related to program portability.
– forest
Mar 1 '18 at 3:04
|
show 1 more comment
Speaking as a programmer by trade, with decades of experience, the most common antonym I encounter by far to portable is simply non-portable.
I've never heard portable software used to refer to being operational without having to install. Portable software, rather, is software that runs on any platform with a minimum of extra work - either it's available as one of several compiled versions the user can download and run, or the source code is available and can be compiled on any platform, presumably with a single command or action. If it's available in multiple compiled forms (i.e., an EXE, SH, etc.), then that may still result in an installation step, but the software is still considered portable, because the same source code was (probably) used to produce both downloadable binaries. It's portable even if it modifies a Windows registry, drops a script for itself in /etc/init
, et cetera.
The term that would most closely mean operational without having to install would probably be ready-to-run, but in general, I never even encounter this meaning, let alone as a one-word term, nor its antonym.
add a comment |
Speaking as a programmer by trade, with decades of experience, the most common antonym I encounter by far to portable is simply non-portable.
I've never heard portable software used to refer to being operational without having to install. Portable software, rather, is software that runs on any platform with a minimum of extra work - either it's available as one of several compiled versions the user can download and run, or the source code is available and can be compiled on any platform, presumably with a single command or action. If it's available in multiple compiled forms (i.e., an EXE, SH, etc.), then that may still result in an installation step, but the software is still considered portable, because the same source code was (probably) used to produce both downloadable binaries. It's portable even if it modifies a Windows registry, drops a script for itself in /etc/init
, et cetera.
The term that would most closely mean operational without having to install would probably be ready-to-run, but in general, I never even encounter this meaning, let alone as a one-word term, nor its antonym.
add a comment |
Speaking as a programmer by trade, with decades of experience, the most common antonym I encounter by far to portable is simply non-portable.
I've never heard portable software used to refer to being operational without having to install. Portable software, rather, is software that runs on any platform with a minimum of extra work - either it's available as one of several compiled versions the user can download and run, or the source code is available and can be compiled on any platform, presumably with a single command or action. If it's available in multiple compiled forms (i.e., an EXE, SH, etc.), then that may still result in an installation step, but the software is still considered portable, because the same source code was (probably) used to produce both downloadable binaries. It's portable even if it modifies a Windows registry, drops a script for itself in /etc/init
, et cetera.
The term that would most closely mean operational without having to install would probably be ready-to-run, but in general, I never even encounter this meaning, let alone as a one-word term, nor its antonym.
Speaking as a programmer by trade, with decades of experience, the most common antonym I encounter by far to portable is simply non-portable.
I've never heard portable software used to refer to being operational without having to install. Portable software, rather, is software that runs on any platform with a minimum of extra work - either it's available as one of several compiled versions the user can download and run, or the source code is available and can be compiled on any platform, presumably with a single command or action. If it's available in multiple compiled forms (i.e., an EXE, SH, etc.), then that may still result in an installation step, but the software is still considered portable, because the same source code was (probably) used to produce both downloadable binaries. It's portable even if it modifies a Windows registry, drops a script for itself in /etc/init
, et cetera.
The term that would most closely mean operational without having to install would probably be ready-to-run, but in general, I never even encounter this meaning, let alone as a one-word term, nor its antonym.
edited Feb 13 '17 at 21:54
answered Feb 13 '17 at 21:36
Paul BrinkleyPaul Brinkley
55227
55227
add a comment |
add a comment |
Within the very particular context you provided, I would respectfully offer the hyphenated term "platform-specific."
This meets the criteria you established here;
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)"
A platform-specific application is one that runs only under particular hardware or specific operating system. This is in contrast to a portable application, which can run in a variety of environments.
Now, having offered that, I know of very few applications that would realistically fall under your constraint. Even a Java application would require a Java runtime or full JVM. Web applications execute in the context of both a web server and the client browser, but the application itself isn't changing execution environments in the context you describe.
add a comment |
Within the very particular context you provided, I would respectfully offer the hyphenated term "platform-specific."
This meets the criteria you established here;
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)"
A platform-specific application is one that runs only under particular hardware or specific operating system. This is in contrast to a portable application, which can run in a variety of environments.
Now, having offered that, I know of very few applications that would realistically fall under your constraint. Even a Java application would require a Java runtime or full JVM. Web applications execute in the context of both a web server and the client browser, but the application itself isn't changing execution environments in the context you describe.
add a comment |
Within the very particular context you provided, I would respectfully offer the hyphenated term "platform-specific."
This meets the criteria you established here;
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)"
A platform-specific application is one that runs only under particular hardware or specific operating system. This is in contrast to a portable application, which can run in a variety of environments.
Now, having offered that, I know of very few applications that would realistically fall under your constraint. Even a Java application would require a Java runtime or full JVM. Web applications execute in the context of both a web server and the client browser, but the application itself isn't changing execution environments in the context you describe.
Within the very particular context you provided, I would respectfully offer the hyphenated term "platform-specific."
This meets the criteria you established here;
(Note: I said word here, not term, so it'd have to be an adjective that can be used in the format [~~~] application, in clear opposition to the format [portable] application, which is a very common phrase used to refer to portable programmes.)"
A platform-specific application is one that runs only under particular hardware or specific operating system. This is in contrast to a portable application, which can run in a variety of environments.
Now, having offered that, I know of very few applications that would realistically fall under your constraint. Even a Java application would require a Java runtime or full JVM. Web applications execute in the context of both a web server and the client browser, but the application itself isn't changing execution environments in the context you describe.
answered Mar 20 '18 at 23:29
David WDavid W
21216
21216
add a comment |
add a comment |
Perhaps local ? Or some kind of a derrivation from that word.
New contributor
add a comment |
Perhaps local ? Or some kind of a derrivation from that word.
New contributor
add a comment |
Perhaps local ? Or some kind of a derrivation from that word.
New contributor
Perhaps local ? Or some kind of a derrivation from that word.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 13 mins ago
user1337user1337
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f270220%2fantonym-of-portable-in-the-context-of-a-computer-programme%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
In what sense the term you are looking for would be different from "installed"?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:30
5
Note this is not a normal CS use of the word portable - portable software usually means can be run on differing Operating Systems and or hardware
– Mark
Aug 30 '15 at 20:42
@Josh61: This should patently obvious from what I posted. I explicitly said what sense I meant.
– SarahofGaia
Aug 30 '15 at 20:51
1
Why wouldn't an "installed app" be the opposite of a "portable" one?
– user66974
Aug 30 '15 at 20:53
1
@SarahofGaia- Please define what you mean by ad hoc- I don't think calling a non-portable app as an installed app is in any way ad hoc.
– Jim
Aug 30 '15 at 22:36