4 ms·
Exhibit J is interesting. So much of this code looks like boilerplate to me that I don't think it says much about whether it was copied. Given standard naming
by flatline 16y ago
Exhibit J is interesting. So much of this code looks like boilerplate to me that I don't think it says much about whether it was copied. Given standard naming conventions, the public interface, and the simplicity of the code, a lot of developers would create almost identical implementations. I mean, the code doesn't actually DO hardly anything.
- confuzatron 16y agoSome aspects of it look copied to me - the class's 10 fields are in identical order. Some parameters to the function look lifted straight from code generated by disassembling bytecode (flag flag1 set set1). However, these may be explainable by some other means. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=permutations+of+10+items http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=permutations+of+10+item...
- blasdel 16y agoThey were probably listed in that order in the documentation, and the javadocs are generated from the source. It'd be more suspect if they were in a different order, especially if they were ordered as if they were in a hashtable that was iterated over.
- confuzatron 16y agoInteresting but unconvincing theory. I have never seen public API documentation that lists private fields before. This certainly makes no mention of private fields: http://www.docjar.com/docs/api/sun/security/provider/certpath/PolicyNodeImpl.html http://www.docjar.com/docs/api/sun/security/provider/certpat...
- fauigerzigerk 16y agoThe mXZY naming isn't standard. This piece of code is clearly copied in some shape or form. Google's defence also doesn't claim that it's not copied as I understand it.