On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
snip > The reason that the mechanics issues call out for attention is something I > said before: in C++, 5% of the source code is template code [and therefore > in need of instantiation]. In BitC, probably 95% of the code is parametric > [and therefore in need of instantiation]. snip, the oracle v google case had me considering the legal/copyright ramifications of this, with them arguing over copyright of a bunch of header files, with the architecture used e.g. JIT (from what i can tell/never messed with java) seems to have achieved a much cleaner separation of factual headers from functioning source code (that nobody is going to argue the copyrightability of), than c++ templates/cpp macros allow for, I'd think their position would be significantly strengthened in another language were they (google) arguing that one line (the declaration) is legally insignificant, but the next (the implementation) was. > Please note that in [1] I wrote "code" rather than "source code". In C++, > the requirement is for source code, but C# clearly demonstrates that a > high-level intermediate form can be used. I personally prefer the high-level > intermediate form approach. I would seem to prefer the high-level intermediate form, since it seems to provide for the factual/functioning code to be separated. if only for the purpose of coherent organization, should oracle get its way such a split wouldn't seem to matter legally. p.s. sorry for derailing the 'that other thread got derailed' thread. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
