[Development] Fornux C++ Superset

Phil Bouchard philippeb8 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 18:22:39 CEST 2018

Edward Welbourne <edward.welbourne at qt.io> wrote:
> Phil Bouchard (27 April 2018 15:36)
>> - It’s always better to patent important algorithms
> Those of us who believe in the freedom of ideas disagree.  It is better
> to publish important algorithms, so that no-one else can patent them.

Good point but I personally believe a balance between capitalism and
socialism is the best approach because it’s a case by case situation. For
example the military don’t want their code to be outsourced and competition
in general speeds up development but “has been” word processors can
definitely be outsourced.

Also I did my fair amount of contributions to science with:
- the root_ptr memory manager
- the astrophysics theory currently being peer-reviewed by the “Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society”

So having a commercial parser is natural. The Clang team encourages it.

>> - But outside North-America and Europe, companies do not care about
>> copyrights and patents
> Even in Europe and North America, companies will get away with what they
> can.  However, if they're copying your code in a reverse-engineerable
> language, reverse-engineering of their code will reveal the copying.

We don’t live in a perfect world and therefore all we can do is minimize
the chances we get plagiarized, specially by some random hacker.

>> - That’s why there are tools to protect your software from being reverse
>> engineered such as:
>> https://www.intertrust.com/products/application-shielding/
> I confess I have not looked at it.  I am profoundly sceptical of its
> ability to be more than a speed-bump to the genuinely committed reverse
> engineer, just like DRM on music and movies.  Copy-protection is pretty
> much always futile, if you're putting a copy into the hands of the user,
> no matter how much you obfuscate it.
>> I would then suggest GC languages should be optional and not mandatory. At
>> the present time, QML forces us to use JS.
> I believe it is entirely possible to write purely declarative QML, which
> makes no use of JS.  By judicious use of C++ classes below the bonnet,
> you can get all the complexity of behaviour that JS would bring.
> However, you'll almost certainly get to this state faster by first
> prototyping in JS and then coding C++ classes to make the JS that leaves
> you with redundant.

Good to know.


More information about the Development mailing list