>
> And if patents are such a good thing why is the largest CPU design firm from
> England (aka ARM) ?
>
> I don't see any connection between this fact and the presence or absence of
> software patent laws, so this question is probably a strawman.
>
> --
> Cédric
>
I mentioned ARM as even t
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 11:37 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <
miroslav.poko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/09/2010, at 4:06 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
>
> >
> > How so? Most of the innovative software companies are in the US, so
> certainly, the software patent system can't be as bad as you say it is,
> righ
On 13/09/2010, at 4:06 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
>
> How so? Most of the innovative software companies are in the US, so
> certainly, the software patent system can't be as bad as you say it is, right?
>
> --
> Cédric
Are you sure that's not because the USA Market is bigger so most or many
Ow ! I should have known better than using the P-word. :-)
Important words in my first sentence started with: "If applied with good
sense" ! Which is NOT
* Something that is common knowledge.
* An idea you got overnight without any intention to develop it.
* Something without any kind investment o
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 10:53 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> As I already retorted (a retort you didn't answer), the argument that
> in the US, software patents must have led to an environment where
> software innovation is fairly commonplace - is a logical fallacy.
>
How so? Most of the innova
As I already retorted (a retort you didn't answer), the argument that
in the US, software patents must have led to an environment where
software innovation is fairly commonplace - is a logical fallacy.
On Sep 13, 6:32 am, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Reinier Zwitserloo
Hi Steven,
Good to see some common sense in this debate :-)
A quick comment:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 10:08 PM, Steven Herod wrote:
>
> I feel, if you know your tool well, you'll deliver well, and the
> possibility of a language failing you is not with its syntax, but with
> the limits of the pl
I've worked on projects with a couple of hundreds of thousands of
lines of PHP in a 'mission critical' environment.
I've also done work with Java, Ruby/JRuby or Groovy/Grails, JavaFX and
most recently Salesforce.com's Apex. I've not touched Scala beyond
starting to read a book on the subject.
No
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> (software) patents a necessity? Clearly that must be false.
Well, as we already discussed, it's working pretty well for the US, isn't
it?
--
Cédric
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
(software) patents a necessity? Clearly that must be false. Folks in
the UK manage to produce and even sell software, and they don't have
em.
On Sep 12, 10:34 pm, Jan Goyvaerts wrote:
> If applied with good sense, I think the patents even are a necessity.
> Otherwise we'll end up stealing and se
Bytecode - microcode whats the difference, for all intents they are
practically the same, they do stuff ???
Im going to patent the idea of doing business for each and every day for the
next 10 years. Since 1/1/2011 is a new day in history prior art isnot a
worry and given the idea for that particul
Hi Charlie,
Personally (and I may be wrong...) I think there is a bit of a
reluctance in the Java community to embrace anything that also has an
existence outside of the JVM. I think there is a bit of an "Us (Java)
versus them (Ruby)" mentality, sadly.
Also, there's a thread here from 2009 that
When you say using them on jdk6, are you compiling them yourself?
Thanks, Paul.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 7:57 AM, clay wrote:
> I've been using jsr-310 and nio2 on jdk6, but third party libraries
> won't support them until they are in a released jdk.
>
>
--
You received this message because you
Don't buy it. You are saying Java is bad because it is too verbose. What I
am saying verbosity or conciseness is not the real reason code is
understandable or not, there a lot more to it than that.
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Kevin Wright wrote:
> If anything, I thing the misunderstanding
"Otherwise we'll end up stealing and selling each other idea's all the time"
I hope I'm being trolled! Begging the question that ideas are indeed
property, who are we selling them to if they're available free?
On 13 September 2010 06:34, Jan Goyvaerts wrote:
> If applied with good sense, I thin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/13/10 00:02 , BoD wrote:
> Interesting! Does that mean that when Google acquired Android,
> Inc. there was no code yet? BoD
>
I suppose that the original Android inc. developed the Linux kernel
adaptation and the hardware design guidelines (if I'
Interesting! Does that mean that when Google acquired Android, Inc.
there was no code yet?
BoD
On 09/12/2010 07:21 PM, Cédric Beust ? wrote:
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot
mailto:reini...@gmail.com>> wrote:
It's not really google that made the decision to deviat
If applied with good sense, I think the patents even are a necessity.
Otherwise we'll end up stealing and selling each other idea's all the time.
That would be a funny sight... :-)
However, patenting the execution of bytecode ... has somebody already
patenting a device to push buttons to enter dat
Well, with the new schedule, Java7 won't include any jigsaw at all.
Also, I'm guessing jigsaw is going to be at least 2 JSRs. This is what
jigsaw is:
Jigsaw (Primary goal): The modularization of the JVM, in all aspects,
be it runtime, or compile-time.
Jigsaw (Secondary goal): Given that OSGi had
That's indeed the official position. But more than a few, in this
forum and elsewhere, have assumed or speculated that oracle is trying
to defend java as a single unforked platform, usually those who
believe it is oracle and not google who should deserve the support of
the community, or those who b
Well, splitting off colour, bufferedimage, and stream-image-to-png/jpg/
etc would be moved to a new package, and all the existing swing stuff
will wrap calls to that. This new package forms the core of a new
module, dedicated JUST to image manipulation, not to rendering any of
it. It doesn't have t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 9/12/10 19:13 , Cédric Beust ♔ wrote:
>
> The unofficial position (well, my interpretation anyway) is that
> Oracle bought Sun for the sole purpose of suing Google with the
> hope of making money. They are a business company and they couldn't
> car
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> It's not really google that made the decision to deviate from
> standard java so much. Android was developed by a separate company
> which google later bought.
>
That's incorrect, everything was written from scratch at Google.
--
Céd
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> On to how android and oracle could have gotten along, at least, if the
> idea is that oracle is protecting the "write once run anywhere" nature
> of java:
>
I don't think they've ever claimed such a thing.
The official position is tha
No JSR for Jigsaw then... which suggests it won't form a part of Java
SE7/8, and probably not a part of JDK7/8 either.
On Sep 11, 4:02 pm, Fabrizio Giudici
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I don't know whether somebody already spotted that and mentioned in
> the thread
Is there going to be a 2011 Java Posse roundup? If so, when will
details come out, or are they somewhere already? I would love to make
it this year.
Thanks!
Birch
http://codefui.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On the whole I agree with you (about the general idea of modularize,
so you don't force people to have all the rt.jar to call a thing
"Java"), but I disagree with some points. In particular regarding
AWT/Swing:
1. There are not only the UI classes, b
Footnotes to the OP:
* It might seem like you need to eliminate java.lang.Runtime itself
from guaranteed "java", because it contains "exec" which involves
invoking child processes, which should clearly be a separate module
not in the requirements list for calling yourself "java". But that's
not a
Here's a little observation that's important to keep in mind before I
get to the main gist of my point:
j2me is a fork of the "real" java (j2se), in much the same way android
is a fork of the real java. Stuff written for j2me will not run on
j2se, and vice versa, though if your code is simple and
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Serge Boulay wrote:
> The syntax issue is not a problem. I'm just so use to statically typed
> languages and the tools built around them that I never really considered
> anything else. I think I identify more with the work you are doing with
> Mirah http://www.mira
The syntax issue is not a problem. I'm just so use to statically typed
languages and the tools
built around them that I never really considered anything else. I think I
identify more with the work
you are doing with Mirah http://www.mirah.org/wiki/MirahFeatures .
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 2:19 AM,
How hard is it to understand patent law, folks?
What you're suggesting won't change anything. Not one iota. You can re-
invent everything as far as I care. It's patent law. What you're
suggesting would help avoid any lawsuits that revolve around trademark
law. The lawsuit oracle opened against goo
The fashion industry would beg to differ.
On 12 September 2010 16:30, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 12, 4:16 am, Keith Haber wrote:
> > But we're in agreement that the situation sucks. Especially for
> > people like Jan, who sounds like he just wants to go invent cool stuff
> > witho
I don't think Sun's two goals of making java open source, and making
sure that "java" keeps its write once run anywhere dynamic are
mutually exclusive. You don't need to prevent forks. All you need to
do is prevent any forked projects from going anywhere near the name
"java", which you can legally
On Sep 12, 4:16 am, Keith Haber wrote:
> But we're in agreement that the situation sucks. Especially for
> people like Jan, who sounds like he just wants to go invent cool stuff
> without worrying about lawsuits.
No, but you don't understand! Patents are GOOD for innovation!
--
You received
>
>
> It is time like this I realise it is hard being a programmer. I found the
last remark very funny and wanted to share it with others but realised they
would not be able to understand how funny it is without covering computer
programming 101 and the relative merits of static vs dynamic typing a
Well, there's no way i'm going to raise my children to believe in
dynamic typing... barbarians.
CC :)
On Sep 12, 8:00 pm, Kevin Wright wrote:
> Half the problem is that everybody is too like minded.
>
> Compared to the differences between Christianity and Islam, Catholics and
> Protestants are b
Half the problem is that everybody is too like minded.
Compared to the differences between Christianity and Islam, Catholics and
Protestants are basically the same thing.
Then compare again to Buddhism, Shinto or Confucianism, and they all share a
common believe in the same "Abrahamic" deity.
Yet
JRuby is a great implementation of the language.
I've used it for a couple of hobby projects and like what I see, though I
certainly wouldn't class myself an expert :)
I also follow the jvm-l list and empathise with some of the pain that the VM
has given you...
I think dynamic typing is the bigge
Yeah, its all relative isn't it. This forum is divine scripture
compared to most others.
On Sep 12, 11:40 am, "phil.swen...@gmail.com"
wrote:
> I think this is a pretty decent forum. There is silliness in every
> forum, I find this place pretty solid and interesting.
>
> On Sep 10, 6:55 pm, Osc
If anything, I thing the misunderstanding goes the other direction.
There's a belief that all concise code will automatically be as unreadable
as badly-written perl, and that the extra boilerplate somehow acts as a
safety-net.
I've seem opinions on this list believing that you're bound to do somet
41 matches
Mail list logo
