3 ms·

> In this way, the declaring code’s shortcut function is similar to a gas pedal in a car that tells the car to move faster or the QWERTY keyboard on a typewrite

by pkulak 6y ago

> In this way, the declaring code’s shortcut function is similar to a gas pedal in a car that tells the car to move faster or the QWERTY keyboard on a typewriter that calls up a certain letter when you press a particular key. As those analogies demonstrate, one can think of the declaring code as part of an interface between human beings and a machine. I love this analogy, and I'm going to use it to describe this case from now on. If I have a great idea for a new keyboard, maybe great new clicky keys or something, I have to make it QWERTY. I can't just come up with some random key ordering. And it has nothing to do with how good or bad QWERTY is as an idea. It's just that QWERTY happens to be what people have skills in.

anonymouse008 6y ago
Actually, I find this a bit underpowered. The whole idea is that the invention (in this case the API design or QWERTY in your example) is so powerful that it becomes a 'utility' - so Java's implementation was so powerful it really should have been 'patented' not copyrighted. Then after 20 years, you can take the true 'utility' of the API design from Java to the commons. And yes, if ease of use will be a differentiator why people like Apple (whether it's right or wrong), then so is the ability to learn is an attribute to be protected from theft. I say all this seeing exactly where Swift is heading, and probably why Apple created the language that will run their unified APIs... because there's no other way to join except through their Swift gates.
- sangnoir 6y ago
  > The whole idea is that the invention (in this case the API design or QWERTY in your example) is so powerful that it becomes a 'utility' - so Java's implementation was so powerful it really should have been 'patented' not copyrighted. The majority's argument was that utility is not imbued by the maker (Oracle), but by 3rd parties (programmers) adopting it. Patenting an API is a good way of scaring people away from using it - good luck with that.

by pkulak 6y ago

anonymouse008 6y ago

Actually, I find this a bit underpowered. The whole idea is that the invention (in this case the API design or QWERTY in your example) is so powerful that it becomes a 'utility' - so Java's implementation was so powerful it really should have been 'patented' not copyrighted. Then after 20 years, you can take the true 'utility' of the API design from Java to the commons. And yes, if ease of use will be a differentiator why people like Apple (whether it's right or wrong), then so is the ability to learn is an attribute to be protected from theft. I say all this seeing exactly where Swift is heading, and probably why Apple created the language that will run their unified APIs... because there's no other way to join except through their Swift gates.

sangnoir 6y ago
> The whole idea is that the invention (in this case the API design or QWERTY in your example) is so powerful that it becomes a 'utility' - so Java's implementation was so powerful it really should have been 'patented' not copyrighted. The majority's argument was that utility is not imbued by the maker (Oracle), but by 3rd parties (programmers) adopting it. Patenting an API is a good way of scaring people away from using it - good luck with that.