Can someone remind me what patents are for? A common argument is that they are supposed to increase innovation, but how I don't see how. When was the last time you went looking through the patent database for ideas? How many of us can even understand the hyperinflated language in patent filings?
There's also another reason. The google query:
slashdot site:cnn.com
gives you different information than a simple CNN search for "slashdot". It tells you the most popular (i.e. most linked to) articles on CNN that refer to slashdot. Often times, this is more important since, as far as the world is concerned, these are the most memorable Slashdot articles.
Anyway, here's the question:
> 11. Why your own virtual machine? Why not
> compile to JVM/.NET?
> Those VMs are designed for statically typed
> languages. That's fine, since Java, C#, and
> lots of other languages are statically typed.
> Perl isn't. For a variety of reasons, it means
> that perl would run more slowly there than on
> an interpreter geared towards dynamic
> languages.
This isn't right since.NET and JVM are as typed as you want them to be. For example, the prototype:
object myfunction(object obj1, object obj2);
tells you nothing about the argument types or the return type of the function myfunction().
Maybe it's refering to the fact that some languages allow variable number of arguments (e.g. print). While it's true that the JVM doesn't have this feature so it has to be emulated inefficiently by passing an array, the.NET VM allows you to define functions with a variable number of arguments.
> 11. Why your own virtual machine? Why not
> compile to JVM/.NET?
> Those VMs are designed for statically typed
> languages. That's fine, since Java, C#, and
> lots of other languages are statically typed.
> Perl isn't. For a variety of reasons, it means
> that perl would run more slowly there than on
> an interpreter geared towards dynamic
> languages.
Slashdot Mirror
Can someone remind me what patents are for? A common argument is that they are supposed to increase innovation, but how I don't see how. When was the last time you went looking through the patent database for ideas? How many of us can even understand the hyperinflated language in patent filings?
No XP stands for the greek letters X (chi) and P (rho). In other words, Cairo.
There's also another reason. The google query:
slashdot site:cnn.com
gives you different information than a simple CNN search for "slashdot". It tells you the most popular (i.e. most linked to) articles on CNN that refer to slashdot. Often times, this is more important since, as far as the world is concerned, these are the most memorable Slashdot articles.
This part of the "Top 20 Gaining Queries" caught my eye:
5. anthrax
6. windows xp
7. osama bin laden
So Windows XP is more popular than osama bin laden but not nearly as popular as anthrax.
Wait 'til the Microsoft Marketing Department gets a hold of this.;-)
Sorry about that, there was a focus problem.
.NET and JVM are as typed as you want them to be. For example, the prototype:
.NET VM allows you to define functions with a variable number of arguments.
Anyway, here's the question:
> 11. Why your own virtual machine? Why not
> compile to JVM/.NET?
> Those VMs are designed for statically typed
> languages. That's fine, since Java, C#, and
> lots of other languages are statically typed.
> Perl isn't. For a variety of reasons, it means
> that perl would run more slowly there than on
> an interpreter geared towards dynamic
> languages.
This isn't right since
object myfunction(object obj1, object obj2);
tells you nothing about the argument types or the return type of the function myfunction().
Maybe it's refering to the fact that some languages allow variable number of arguments (e.g. print). While it's true that the JVM doesn't have this feature so it has to be emulated inefficiently by passing an array, the
What is the FAQ talking about?
> 11. Why your own virtual machine? Why not
> compile to JVM/.NET?
> Those VMs are designed for statically typed
> languages. That's fine, since Java, C#, and
> lots of other languages are statically typed.
> Perl isn't. For a variety of reasons, it means
> that perl would run more slowly there than on
> an interpreter geared towards dynamic
> languages.
It's more along the lines of spaghetti programming + OOP meatballs.