|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 03:23 AM EDT |
It's only reasonable to include in this case those meanings of
"symbol" that pertain to programming language processing and to VM
implementation though, not the meanings from other disciplines.
"Symbol" as used in CompSci is not only totally unambiguous and well
known and taught universally in the same way, but has been so for over half a
century.
How symbols are stored and processed in the Java toolchain and in Dalvik is not
a matter of opinion but a matter of fact which cannot be fudged, and nor can
history be rewritten worldwide to make "symbol" and "symbolic
resolution" mean something different to what they do.
Mitchell is so far out on a limb that it would be quite dumbfounding for us if
we thought that he actually believed what he said in court. However, we don't,
because Google's cross-examination clearly showed that he didn't use
"symbolic reference" in that way previously. He used to call indexes
and offsets "numeric references", just like the rest of us. It seems
clear then that he has invented this "black actually means white"
interpretation purely to benefit Oracle, and Google's questioning clearly
impeached his testimony. He is a dishonest academic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
