"Teach yourself ... Delphi 2", Devra Hall, 1996, MIS-Press, p59:
"This
might be a good time to note the difference between design-time and
run-time properties. In the first two chapters, you used the Object
Inspector to assign values to the various components' properties. All the
design-time properties for each component are listed in the Object Inspector.
Run-time properties are those properties whose values can be set and/or reset
while your application is running."
Italics in the original. There's
more. I have other references, to run-time and also dynamic code changes. But
those books are behind a shelf in my child's room, and said child is asleep now.
It's totally not accurate, and a bold faced lie to boot, to construe
"running" as "run-time". Run-time has a very specific meaning in the world of
programming, and if Mr. Mitchell is putting forth a proposal that what the
Dalvik VM is doing is run-time dynamic changes, he's either unqualified as an
expert or perjuring through his teeth.
Compilation (or in this case
cross-compilation) is a static, non-run-time activity.
Dynamic activity can
*only* happen in the actual running program.
Take for example your
standard Windows program. It makes calls to the Windows OS, which is composed of
a core program and DLLs (Dynamic Link Library). More or less, I'm simplifying
"core program", for brevity. The linking of those DLLs and the variable
resolutions and substitutions happens dynamically at run-time of the client
application.
The variables and substitutions in the client program
itself may be either static or dynamic.
I'll find some other references
tomorrow, but rest assured "running" is not conclusively equal to "run-time". A
device that is running will have a number of applications which are in the
"run-time" state. But an application being cross-compiled/optimized is not one
of them.
The cross-compiler/optimizer is in run-time. But the
application is just so much data to be crunched by it. The application is not
"running", in "run-time" or being "simulatedly executed". It's being compiled or
optimized.
It's like saying you are making a "50(b) motion" when
actually asking for "403 objection". Or saying you were driving a car while the
engine was running and you were sitting in the back seat while parked.
I
don't see how any of these lawyers can feign ignorance of this. Mitchell
certainly knows better. Yes, I'm barking mad about this. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|