Matthias <··@spam.please> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I recently read on a German IT news page that some inventors from
> Microsoft have been granted a patent on "Replaceable classes and
> virtual constructors for object-oriented programming languages" (US
> Pat. #6,895,581, May 17, 2005, http://tinylink.com/?bCVVPOPPuw ).
>
> Citing from the patent they address the problem that
>
> "the introduction of a new derived class may require extensive
> editing and recompilation of existing source listing originally
> programmed to create objects of the old base classes. This process
> can be very time consuming and prone to errors, especially when the
> software project is large and the class hierarchy is complex. As a
> result, existing object-oriented programming languages do not
> facilitate incremental development of a software project by
> gradually replacing base classes with new derived classes."
>
> This is solved by introducing "replaceable" classes:
>
> "The class replacement allows an existing module to be reused to
> create objects of the new class without the need to modify and
> recompile the source code for the existing module. This ability to
> reuse existing code to create objects of new classes greatly
> facilitates incremental development of a software application by
> introducing new derived classes to provide refined functionality
> and features."
>
> The patent doesn't mention Lisp, but I wonder if this problem has not
> already been addressed in the same way by CLOS?
To me it sounds like the factory pattern, or just plain dynamic class
systems like in CLOS, Objective-C or Smalltalk, where you can change a
parent class and you don't have to recompile the subclasses.
A useless narrow-minded patent targetting only C++ (and perhaps C# too?).
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ _ Software patents are endangering
() ASCII ribbon against html email (o_ the computer industry all around
/\ 1962:DO20I=1.100 //\ the world http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/
2001:my($f)=`fortune`; V_/ http://petition.eurolinux.org/
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Matthias <··@spam.please> writes:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I recently read on a German IT news page that some inventors from
>>Microsoft have been granted a patent on "Replaceable classes and
>>virtual constructors for object-oriented programming languages" (US
>>Pat. #6,895,581, May 17, 2005, http://tinylink.com/?bCVVPOPPuw ).
>>
>>Citing from the patent they address the problem that
>>
>> "the introduction of a new derived class may require extensive
>> editing and recompilation of existing source listing originally
>> programmed to create objects of the old base classes. This process
>> can be very time consuming and prone to errors, especially when the
>> software project is large and the class hierarchy is complex. As a
>> result, existing object-oriented programming languages do not
>> facilitate incremental development of a software project by
>> gradually replacing base classes with new derived classes."
>>
>>This is solved by introducing "replaceable" classes:
>>
>> "The class replacement allows an existing module to be reused to
>> create objects of the new class without the need to modify and
>> recompile the source code for the existing module. This ability to
>> reuse existing code to create objects of new classes greatly
>> facilitates incremental development of a software application by
>> introducing new derived classes to provide refined functionality
>> and features."
>>
>>The patent doesn't mention Lisp, but I wonder if this problem has not
>>already been addressed in the same way by CLOS?
>
>
> To me it sounds like the factory pattern, or just plain dynamic class
> systems like in CLOS, Objective-C or Smalltalk, where you can change a
> parent class and you don't have to recompile the subclasses.
>
> A useless narrow-minded patent targetting only C++ (and perhaps C# too?).
>
1. The patent covers all object-oriented languages, not just C++.
2. The patent is about not having to recompile a DLL defining and using
class X when you want to try a different approach. Instead, you define
class Y as a subclass of X, extend as you see fit, then register Y as
replacing X. And all this must be set up beforehand by placing X in a
reusable module. We are laughing, and C++ developers think they have
died and gone to heaven. :)
kt
--
Cells? Cello?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Cells-Gtk?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells-gtk/
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
"Doctor, I wrestled with reality for forty years, and I am happy to
state that I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> 1. The patent covers all object-oriented languages, not just C++.
>
> 2. The patent is about not having to recompile a DLL defining and
> using class X when you want to try a different approach. Instead, you
> define class Y as a subclass of X, extend as you see fit, then
> register Y as replacing X. And all this must be set up beforehand by
> placing X in a reusable module. We are laughing, and C++ developers
> think they have died and gone to heaven. :)
You mean like what is routinely done in Objective-C with poseAs: (and
probably in Smalltalk too)?
Patents are so weak!
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Kitty like plastic.
Confuses for litter box.
Don't leave tarp around.