Actually it's not that simple. Modern JIT compilers do method inlining, and so the jitted code is a derivative work of the class library code, and possibly of some JIT intrinsics.
IANAL, but if you were somehow to redistribute the jitted code including some inlined GPLed code, I think you'd be bound by the GPL to license your own code under the GPL.
However, the usual use of Java is to run the jitted code once, in-place, without distributing it, and then to discard that code when that particular invocation of the JVM terminates. In this usage scenario, I don't think there's any problem with the GPL.
I've heard that when you're travelling near lightspeed, things behind you (say, 120 degrees from the forward direction) appear to be in front of you. Can anyone give the Relativity for Dummies version of why this happens?
Remember that if you are putting pointers into the file directly, that it works better if the pointers are relative offsets rather than direct memory pointers, even though direct memory pointers are in theory possible during a single session run.
Good advice. These are "self-relative-pointers". Instead of this:
Hey, I like Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but you ought to find at least one reiable source to back up your claim that the Soyuz is the best thing since sliced bread. Quoting Wikipedia (without citation, no less) only demonstrates that someone who edits Wikipedia likes Soyuz, and that nobody who came after him has been able to refute any of the statements made.
Normally, in case of rockets like Soyuz, maybe 1% of the original mass is put in the orbit, a tiny, light reentry device, maybe some payload. In case of the shuttle we need to lift a huge, ultra-heavy vehicle into orbit, it requires vastly more fuel.
Well, this is almost right. The Soyuz, being a 3-stage rocket, has a mass ratio around 34 compared with the Shuttle's 15.6. Hence, the Soyuz gets about 3% of its mass to orbit, while the Shuttle gets around 6.4%. However, this is actually a point in favour of the Shuttle: for a given vehicle mass, a high mass ratio actually means a craft needs more fuel. Therefore, the Soyuz needs twice as much fuel as the Shuttle per vehicle mass.
The difference is that, once in orbit, the Shuttle outweighs the Soyuz 14.5 to 1 (cargo included). Factoring all these things together, the fuel used for one Shuttle launch could supply 7 Soyuz launches.
In his book Entering Space, Robert Zubrin argued that the Space Shuttle got it backward: it made the upper stage reusable while the lower stage is not. Rather, the massive, powerful lower stages should be the reusable one, while the upper stage can be a light disposable craft. He summed it up this way: "In short, the Space Shuttle is so inefficient because it is built upside-down." (Emphasis in original.)
Besides the objections named in another reply, there's also the fact that copyright and open-source are very much compatible. In fact, the GPL relies entirely on copyright.
Before clicking, I figured out what "controversy" linked to. But "European Southern Observatory" didn't link to the ESO, "first picture" didn't link to a picture, "extrasolar planet" didn't link to a page explaining what extrasolar planets are, and who can guess what "indeed captured" should point to??
Aside from the other criticisms posted already, I'd like to add that a sizeable part of the gaming target market is young teenagers with short memories. The quality of games for this market is about as important as the quality of boy bands.
And I'm afraid it's a little bit of a dodge to say it's "at room temperature". The article doesn't say this, but presumably this takes place in a vaccum, where temperature is basically undefined in any conventional sense.
Isn't it valid to relate the "temperature" of a vacuum to the nature of the radiation passing through it? That is, if you put a black box at at a certain spot in that vacuum, how hot would it become before it reached thermal equilibrium?
I don't know the first thing about the physics involved, but say the resistance is proportional to log_10(n+1) where n is the length. For n >> 1, this is roughly log_10(n). If you cut a wire of resistance r into 10 pieces, each one has a resistance of log_10(n/10) = r-1. Then the total resistance would be 10(r-1) which, I'm guessing, is roughly 10r for any reasonable macroscopic length. Cutting the wire into 10 pieces made the total resistance about 10 times larger. When you disturb the quantum mojo of one of these things, you lose the logarithmic resistance property.
Well, legibility is the primary concern. For instance, I work on a just-in-time compiler, and to use the name justInTimeCompiler everywhere, instead of "jit", would make the code harder to understand at a glance.
Abbreviations are good if and only if they make the code easier to read.
Agreed. There are some circumstances where abbreviations are ok, but in general, for any given name, there are a huge number of possible abbreviations, and vice-versa, so it's bound to cause confusion.
This same point arises every frigging time someone talks about comments. As I say every time: A variable name can only tell you what the variable is, not why you chose to make it that way.
Now with that out of the way, here's my philosophy on variable names... Every variable name should be as long as necessary to describe what the variable is. Having said that, the shorter, the better. If you have a lot of long variable names, then you probably have not found the most elegant solution to your problem.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but if you were somehow to redistribute the jitted code including some inlined GPLed code, I think you'd be bound by the GPL to license your own code under the GPL.
However, the usual use of Java is to run the jitted code once, in-place, without distributing it, and then to discard that code when that particular invocation of the JVM terminates. In this usage scenario, I don't think there's any problem with the GPL.
I've heard that when you're travelling near lightspeed, things behind you (say, 120 degrees from the forward direction) appear to be in front of you. Can anyone give the Relativity for Dummies version of why this happens?
Wow, that's a misuse of statistics. I know almost nothing of the millitary, yet even I can see that body count isn't all it takes to win a war.
They show why Jedi use lightsabers in Episode I. In that movie, anyone attacking a Jedi with a conventional weapon is easily repelled.
I'm sorry, is there anyone reading Slashdot that doesn't know what a p-n junction is?
Hey, I like Wikipedia as much as the next guy, but you ought to find at least one reiable source to back up your claim that the Soyuz is the best thing since sliced bread. Quoting Wikipedia (without citation, no less) only demonstrates that someone who edits Wikipedia likes Soyuz, and that nobody who came after him has been able to refute any of the statements made.
The difference is that, once in orbit, the Shuttle outweighs the Soyuz 14.5 to 1 (cargo included). Factoring all these things together, the fuel used for one Shuttle launch could supply 7 Soyuz launches.
In his book Entering Space, Robert Zubrin argued that the Space Shuttle got it backward: it made the upper stage reusable while the lower stage is not. Rather, the massive, powerful lower stages should be the reusable one, while the upper stage can be a light disposable craft. He summed it up this way: "In short, the Space Shuttle is so inefficient because it is built upside-down." (Emphasis in original.)
Uh huh huh. Uh huh huh. His head popped off, Beavis.
Nice post. I just lost my mod points about an hour ago or else you'd have a well-earned Insightful from me. (Especially point #1.)
Yep, I agree.
Besides the objections named in another reply, there's also the fact that copyright and open-source are very much compatible. In fact, the GPL relies entirely on copyright.
Before clicking, I figured out what "controversy" linked to. But "European Southern Observatory" didn't link to the ESO, "first picture" didn't link to a picture, "extrasolar planet" didn't link to a page explaining what extrasolar planets are, and who can guess what "indeed captured" should point to??
Nice.
Aside from the other criticisms posted already, I'd like to add that a sizeable part of the gaming target market is young teenagers with short memories. The quality of games for this market is about as important as the quality of boy bands.
He's a genius. Check out this short story.
Can we agree that the following variable name would be unwise?
I don't know the first thing about the physics involved, but say the resistance is proportional to log_10(n+1) where n is the length. For n >> 1, this is roughly log_10(n). If you cut a wire of resistance r into 10 pieces, each one has a resistance of log_10(n/10) = r-1. Then the total resistance would be 10(r-1) which, I'm guessing, is roughly 10r for any reasonable macroscopic length. Cutting the wire into 10 pieces made the total resistance about 10 times larger. When you disturb the quantum mojo of one of these things, you lose the logarithmic resistance property.
Abbreviations are good if and only if they make the code easier to read.
Agreed. There are some circumstances where abbreviations are ok, but in general, for any given name, there are a huge number of possible abbreviations, and vice-versa, so it's bound to cause confusion.
Now with that out of the way, here's my philosophy on variable names... Every variable name should be as long as necessary to describe what the variable is. Having said that, the shorter, the better. If you have a lot of long variable names, then you probably have not found the most elegant solution to your problem.