3 ms·
> externalizing most APIs from the language and then adding support for the API to the language as though it is a foreign technology That's true, but only in t
by andrewjl 6y ago
> externalizing most APIs from the language and then adding support for the API to the language as though it is a foreign technology
That's true, but only in the case for the language's standard library. But what about the API of the language's top-level constructs? A class must have an initializer, for instance. Or protocol / interface has the notion of required as well as optional methods. Why is the latter (language APIs) not copyrightable but the former (standard library APIs) is? What is the substantive difference between them?
- austincheney 6y agoYes, there must be some few primitive APIs within a given language. An example is base types and their most essential methods for internal constructs that aren’t meant to be exposed. Unfortunately, Java is just such a perfect for this legal fight. It is proprietary and exists in this nebulous universe of wanting to make everything Java. It’s like Microsoft of the 90s.