The original repo is about using a subset of a language to compare language implementations. I can see the point in that. But language benchmarks like this are incredibly useless and very easy to get wrong anyway. For example it you actually cared about performance for the bounce example you would never write it like this in C. Bouncing 100 balls in a loop 50 times with 4 ifs just tests the branch predictor. There is nothing to learn from this in practice.
It's the abbreviation of Micro Oberon, therefore a quite obvious naming choice; there is no real risk of confusion with commercial offers under this name; it's also a common name in science.
They also have a Micron trademark for software, as they sell some software packages. So it's really just a question of whether or not they notice and decide to go after you.
No. This is a common misconception. I know, you asked an LLM and it said you were very right and it cited a bunch of legal cases which prove you correct. You didn't check any of those citations, because they looked right, because it's an LLM and generating plausible nonsense is exactly what it's good at.
Or worse, you just relied on a vague memory that other people said the reason they have to do something reprehensible was because it's legally required, and even though you've heard that bullshit from a dozen US politicians in the last week and know it's bullshit you thought they must be correct.
No, I've been interested in "intellectual property" restrictions since last millennium, so I've been familiar with the outlines of US trademark law for a while. You evidently are not. Aside from the reductions in scope resulting from laches and equitable estoppel, demonstrating a clear record of enforcement efforts is crucial to preventing genericization, which can befall even the most inherently distinctive marks such as "heroin".
Nowadays it can indeed be difficult to avoid getting taken in by LLM bullshit even if you don't ask an LLM yourself, but it is still possible.
«The term micron and the symbol μ were officially accepted for use in isolation to denote the micrometre in 1879, but officially revoked by the International System of Units (SI) in 1967.»
I'd be more interested in the results, relative to the languages from the main repository.
There are some results in the repository, e.g. one I published recently: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Are-we-fast-yet/blob/main/L...
Or here: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase...
The main repository only recently added a C++ implementation, but it was significantly slower than mine when I check last time (see https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/issues/80).
I mostly use the benchmarks to check how my compilers do compared to the big ones, or how the technologies I'm interested in evolve.
The original repo is about using a subset of a language to compare language implementations. I can see the point in that. But language benchmarks like this are incredibly useless and very easy to get wrong anyway. For example it you actually cared about performance for the bounce example you would never write it like this in C. Bouncing 100 balls in a loop 50 times with 4 ifs just tests the branch predictor. There is nothing to learn from this in practice.
I'd like to hear more about the Oberon languages and compilers used.
See e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon or https://github.com/rochus-keller/Are-we-fast-yet/blob/main/O....
Micron seems like a bad naming choice...maybe it predates the manufacturer?
It's the abbreviation of Micro Oberon, therefore a quite obvious naming choice; there is no real risk of confusion with commercial offers under this name; it's also a common name in science.
MicrOberon
Wouldn't be surprising if the computer/RAM company had registered the trademark in some countries for the field of software.
They surely have better things to do than worry about what I call my programming language.
If they have a trademark they don't defend, they can lose it.
The word "micron" is a common unit of measurement (μm). The trademark Micron™ only applies to microelectronic hardware, I suppose.
They also have a Micron trademark for software, as they sell some software packages. So it's really just a question of whether or not they notice and decide to go after you.
I hope you are correct, but probably continuing the discussion usefully would require doing a trademark search.
No. This is a common misconception. I know, you asked an LLM and it said you were very right and it cited a bunch of legal cases which prove you correct. You didn't check any of those citations, because they looked right, because it's an LLM and generating plausible nonsense is exactly what it's good at.
Or worse, you just relied on a vague memory that other people said the reason they have to do something reprehensible was because it's legally required, and even though you've heard that bullshit from a dozen US politicians in the last week and know it's bullshit you thought they must be correct.
No, I've been interested in "intellectual property" restrictions since last millennium, so I've been familiar with the outlines of US trademark law for a while. You evidently are not. Aside from the reductions in scope resulting from laches and equitable estoppel, demonstrating a clear record of enforcement efforts is crucial to preventing genericization, which can befall even the most inherently distinctive marks such as "heroin".
Nowadays it can indeed be difficult to avoid getting taken in by LLM bullshit even if you don't ask an LLM yourself, but it is still possible.
https://simmonsattorney.com/generic-trademarks/
I think we can skip this discussion.
Okay.
«The term micron and the symbol μ were officially accepted for use in isolation to denote the micrometre in 1879, but officially revoked by the International System of Units (SI) in 1967.»