On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:06:58AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 04:07:34PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Yes, I understand that the runtime library and such are LGPL'd. But > >> the compiler, when it compiles a loop, for example, does it in a > >> particular way. The patterns of assembly code output by the compiler > >> -- not the parts in the library linked in, but the part actually > >> written out by the compiler -- are part of the compiler. And they end > >> up linked with my code. > > > > Unless there is far more to an OCaml compiler, I don't see a big difference > > between this issue and gcc. They both perform mechanical translations of > > data from one format to another. It's a fairly tricky and involved > > transformation, but giving the same code to the same compiler at two > > different times will result in an identical output -- which I have a vague > > recollection is one of the tests of "creative work". > > That's right. But if I give my code to GCC-x86 and to the Intel C > compiler, they will produce different output. The Intel C compiler > will, in many ways, produce better output. It does this for two > reasons. First, it has better algorithmic optimizations than GCC. > Its authors understood the Intel chips better. > > But second, it uses better template code -- its idea of how to compile > a for loop over short integers is beautiful. The structures into > which it compiles a break-free switch statement are elegant. There is > much creativity there.
But the creativity and elegance exist in the compiler itself. The output is nothing more than the result of mechanical transformation. I'm think of an analogy with a certain children's toy called a spirograph. You may have heard of it, or maybe not. It basically consists of a large ring, with cog teeth on the inside, and several smaller cogged circles, each with lots of holes in it. You placed the circle in the ring and a pen in one of the holes, and turned it around and around. It created beautiful patterns. But it's simply the result of a mechanical process. The only copyright that could exist in a spirograph artwork would be the selection of circle, pen hole, and pen colour -- equivalent to source code. I think I'm rambling... - Matt
