| One minor thing I noticed, was his description of Java statements as being
"executed by the Java compiler". It would be more accurate to say they are
"translated into bytecode instructions by the Java compiler" and then that they
are "executed by the Java VM".
There was also a mention somewhere that the
Java VM translates bytecode into executable machine code. That is true of some
Java VMs--particularly those that use a JIT compiler--but not necessarily all
Java VMs... some of them just use an interpreter which interprets (executes) the
bytecode instructions one by one, without ever translating them into native
machine code.
But these are "unnecessary technical details" that would just
clutter up the ruling. I think the main point, is that he had to describe
technical programmer stuff in a clear enough language that the Court of Appeals,
and any other Court reading this ruling later, would be able to understand the
relevant details. And he did a very commendable job of this.
Even if a few
of his technical statements might be quibbled over by a CS professor, they are
certainly accurate enough to convey the essential concepts to a non-technical
audience.
I am a professional programmer and I was employed programming in
Java for several years, and I've also been employed to work on a Java VM, and I
have read this Order through twice now. I don't see any technical inaccuracies
significant enough to have any relevance at all to the legal analysis.
For
someone who isn't a full-time professional programmer, and who isn't a trained
computer scientist, I think Judge Alsup did extremely well at understanding the
technical stuff and at explaining it clearly in his ruling. (Its worth noting
that he _is_ a trained mathematician, and he has also done some programming
before in several languages.) [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
