From: James Logajan
Subject: Re: Amazing new language makes programming easier!
Date:
Message-ID: <3618F99B.B57C912F@Lugoj.Com>
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>
> Jim Hugunin wrote:
> >I just read in the news about an amazing new language called REBOL that makes
> >programming so much more natural. From their web pages
> >(http://www.rebol.com/ware/quick.html):
>
> From the Rebol intro:
>
> Values and words are grouped together in blocks. A
> block begins with a '[' and ends with a ']'.
>
> Too bad Microsoft got a patent on "source code ... enclosed
> between a predefined pair of matching separators, such as
> square brackets" earlier this year ;-)
>
> http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5742828
>
> Or is it perhaps Tcl they've patented? Or any language using
> pairs of matching separators?
>
> Cheers /F
Did a quick read through of that patent; nothing "new" or "novel" there.
As far as I can tell, it is a method to extend the syntax of a
language based on the application being compiled. I think Microsoft
wants to add this to their compilers, get programmers to write
applications with all that syntactical junk added, and have it
fail on other vendors compilers (or those that don't pay licensing
fees). It would probably backfire on Microsoft in any case.
Yet another datum to support the abolition of the patent system.
P.S. Cross posted to a few other newsgroups that might be interested
in the existence of that patent. Advance apologies if this is of
no interest to said groups. Started on comp.lang.python.
From: Stefaan A Eeckels
Subject: Re: Amazing new language makes programming easier!
Date:
Message-ID: <6vcohj$1ef$1@justus.ecc.lu>
In article <·················@lugoj.com>,
James Logajan <······@Lugoj.Com> writes:
> Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>>
>> Jim Hugunin wrote:
>> >I just read in the news about an amazing new language called REBOL that makes
>> >programming so much more natural. From their web pages
>> >(http://www.rebol.com/ware/quick.html):
>>
>> From the Rebol intro:
>>
>> Values and words are grouped together in blocks. A
>> block begins with a '[' and ends with a ']'.
>>
>> Too bad Microsoft got a patent on "source code ... enclosed
>> between a predefined pair of matching separators, such as
>> square brackets" earlier this year ;-)
>>
>> http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?patent_number=5742828
>>
>> Or is it perhaps Tcl they've patented? Or any language using
>> pairs of matching separators?
>
> Did a quick read through of that patent; nothing "new" or "novel" there.
> As far as I can tell, it is a method to extend the syntax of a
> language based on the application being compiled. I think Microsoft
> wants to add this to their compilers, get programmers to write
> applications with all that syntactical junk added, and have it
> fail on other vendors compilers (or those that don't pay licensing
> fees). It would probably backfire on Microsoft in any case.
>
> Yet another datum to support the abolition of the patent system.
To me it seems a description of Visual Basic for Applications, where
VB can be dynamically extended with constructs that are not compliant
with VB syntax. When the VB 'compiler' encounters such a construct,
it trundles off to the relevant application and asks it to resolve
the construct.
As far as I can see, the patent is harmless when the syntax is part
of the language, such as in Tcl; it would only be applicable in
situations where the construct between the matching delimiters is
not part of the original language. It could well be that scripting
languages qualify as 'prior art', because they typically include
calls to programs having their own syntax, distinct from the scripting
language's syntax. It could also be argued that the 'system()' function
available in 'C' and its derivatives fullfills the exact same purpose,
ie enabling one language to dynamically call on services offered by
outside applications, without these having to conform to the host
language's syntax.
I do agree that allowing patents for such feeble tricks puts the whole
software patent system under strain. What qualifications does one need
to be a software patent examiner?
As usual, IANAL.
--
Stefaan
--
PGP key available from PGP key servers (http://www.pgp.net/pgpnet/)
___________________________________________________________________
Perfection is reached, not when there is no longer anything to add,
but when there is no longer anything to take away. -- Saint-Exup�ry
>>>>> "SAE" == Stefaan A Eeckels <···············@ecc.lu> writes:
SAE> What qualifications does one need to be a software patent
SAE> examiner?
A rubber stamp?
"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
>
> >>>>> "SAE" == Stefaan A Eeckels <···············@ecc.lu> writes:
>
> SAE> What qualifications does one need to be a software patent
> SAE> examiner?
>
> A rubber stamp?
Not at all. I'm sure that most of them can complete their jobs just fine
thank-you with an ink-pad and their tongues.
--
Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc.
·············@peergroup.com Technical Writer
"Unlike serial-killer profiling, writing is a
lonely and depressing profession ..." Jose Chung
In article <············@justus.ecc.lu>, ···············@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
Eeckels) wrote:
>To me it seems a description of Visual Basic for Applications, where
>VB can be dynamically extended with constructs that are not compliant
>with VB syntax. When the VB 'compiler' encounters such a construct,
>it trundles off to the relevant application and asks it to resolve
>the construct.
Yupp. And the funny thing: that is exactly what Rexx does: if it finds a
construct that it can't handle, it passes it off to the current address
space - usually the command line environment - and get's it processed
there. Hmm. Who has the patents on Rexx? IBM I would think. Might this
turn out into a M$ against IBM fight in court? Might be fun to watch fromt
the distance - so one doesn't get trotten on by the dinosaurs :-)
bye, Georg
--
http://www.westfalen.de/hugo/
Georg Bauer wrote in message ...
>>To me it seems a description of Visual Basic for Applications, where
>>VB can be dynamically extended with constructs that are not compliant
>>with VB syntax. When the VB 'compiler' encounters such a construct,
>>it trundles off to the relevant application and asks it to resolve
>>the construct.
>Yupp. And the funny thing: that is exactly what Rexx does: if it finds a
>construct that it can't handle, it passes it off to the current address
>space - usually the command line environment - and get's it processed
>there. Hmm. Who has the patents on Rexx? IBM I would think. Might this
>turn out into a M$ against IBM fight in court? Might be fun to watch fromt
>the distance - so one doesn't get trotten on by the dinosaurs :-)
Tclsh does this as well. That's why tcl can be used as a shell replacement
if you're masochistic. :-)
--
Michael T. Richter <···@ottawa.com> http://www.igs.net/~mtr/
PGP Key: http://www.igs.net/~mtr/pgp-key.html
PGP Fingerprint: 40D1 33E0 F70B 6BB5 8353 4669 B4CC DD09 04ED 4FE8
In article <····················@198.235.216.4>, "Michael T. Richter"
<···@ottawa.com> wrote:
>Tclsh does this as well. That's why tcl can be used as a shell replacement
>if you're masochistic. :-)
Uhm. I always thought you must be very masochistic to do _anything_ with TCL ;-)
bye, Georg
--
http://www.westfalen.de/hugo/
In a previous article, ··@hugo.westfalen.de (Georg Bauer) says:
>In article <············@justus.ecc.lu>, ···············@ecc.lu (Stefaan A
>Eeckels) wrote:
>
>>To me it seems a description of Visual Basic for Applications, where
>>VB can be dynamically extended with constructs that are not compliant
>>with VB syntax. When the VB 'compiler' encounters such a construct,
>>it trundles off to the relevant application and asks it to resolve
>>the construct.
>
>Yupp. And the funny thing: that is exactly what Rexx does: if it finds a
>construct that it can't handle, it passes it off to the current address
>space - usually the command line environment - and get's it processed
>there. Hmm. Who has the patents on Rexx? IBM I would think. Might this
>turn out into a M$ against IBM fight in court? Might be fun to watch fromt
>the distance - so one doesn't get trotten on by the dinosaurs :-)
>
Even though IBM has been using Rexx mostly, I gather it's pretty much out
in the open, with all those different interpreters for various systems.
I only wish Rexx for win32 was free, but that's another discussion
altogether ;) Anyway, patenting simple tricks is a bad idea. Just look at
what happened around the GIF file format.
Greetz,
RS
On 8 Oct 1998 07:57:36 GMT, ·····@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Smol)
uttered:
>I only wish Rexx for win32 was free, but that's another discussion
>altogether ;)
There is a GPLed Rexx implementation called Regina�, developed by
Anders Christensen at the Norwegian Intitute of Technology.
Presumably, it has been ported to Win32 by now.
�) ... Rexx being "almost" the Latin word for king, Regina is the
Latin word for queen. But then, you already knew that. :-)
--
"I had to upgrade the memory of my 8088 from to 256K to 640K just to play [Demon's Winter]."
- ········@usa.net
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen http://www.pvv.org/%7etoriver/
In article <············@justus.ecc.lu>,
Stefaan A Eeckels <···············@ecc.lu> wrote:
>... What qualifications does one need
>to be a software patent examiner?
Closely-related parents?
Regards,
Steve Furlong
On 8 Oct 1998 20:17:38 -0400, ······@alumni.rpi.edu (Steve Furlong) wrote:
>In article <············@justus.ecc.lu>,
>Stefaan A Eeckels <···············@ecc.lu> wrote:
>>... What qualifications does one need
>>to be a software patent examiner?
>
>Closely-related parents?
>
>
>Regards,
>Steve Furlong
Also, ask your school teacher what qualifications he needed to start teaching you. Then throw away
everything related to teaching (including the learning part of it) and leave whatever pertains to
examinations.