|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
Your definition of "Java bytecode" is not in accord with the standard usage. In
my previous post cited a reference that uses "bytecode" to mean the entire
.class file. There are many more. Here is an excerpt from the javac man
page:
The javac tool reads class and interface definitions,
written in the Java programming language, and compiles them into bytecode
class files. It can also process annotations in Java source files and
classes.
I'm not refuting your claim that the patent only refers
to instructions that contain symbolic references. IMO, that is an open
question but is a different matter from what I addressed.
The problem I
am trying to address is that if someone says "Java bytecode doesn't contain
symbolic references" that means (to 99.99% of the world) the symbols do not
exist in the .class files. If you just stick to saying "symbolic references
don't exist in the bytecode instructions" then you are being clear and
more understandable to the rest of the world.
---
Our job is to remind
ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
