|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:49 PM EDT |
This particular pattern would be scanned for once and only once. If it did
simulated execution, you could have non-linear program flow (e.g. jumping around
to different blocks of code). This does simple pattern matching. Although you
can try to play word games to fit one into the other, I do not believe this was
anticipated by Oracle's patent and even if it was, that would make invalid due
to huge amounts of prior art. This was essentially a type of peephole
optimization and those are old.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peephole_optimization
Ohh, look at that, even Wikipedia says: "Modern architectures typically
allow for many hundreds of different kinds of peephole optimizations, and it is
therefore often appropriate for compiler programmers to implement them using a
pattern matching algorithm. [2]"
I'm half-hoping the judge, who does seem to have some clue, finds a way to play
that "no reasonable jury" game again if Oracle manages to bamboozle
the jury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:52 PM EDT |
It is still iteration, in the form of recursion.
The advantage of iteration is not using a stack (fixed patterns), plus the
ability to fold multiple arrays into one initialization operation.
But either way, not patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
