From: Just_Curious
Subject: Do you have Standards Committee in your language?
Date:
Message-ID: <3B098EE9.FCEB6A02@my-deja.net>
All,
Thinking about role of Standards Committee in my favorite
language (Fortran) I decided to hear advice from folks in other
languages first.
What is the role of Your Language committee?
Does Your Committee expand horizons and enlightens compiler
developers with their recommendations? Or opposite,
not being creative, they are working like brake for language
development and experimenting and in fact are negative among
users?
Do you think that compiler vendors and users themselves are not
able to maintain backward compatibility without such committees?
And in general, do you see some analogies between Language Committees
and other regulations in other areas of real life ?
I think these questions are of common interest.
This is post in several language compiler newsgroups,
hence please mention your language unless you specially
don't want this. You may find responds on other languages
searching Deja with subject as above
cheers
From: Kent M Pitman
Subject: Re: Do you have Standards Committee in your language?
Date:
Message-ID: <sfw3d9ymjzi.fsf@world.std.com>
[ replying to comp.lang.lisp only
http://world.std.com/~pitman/pfaq/cross-posting.html ]
Just_Curious <············@my-deja.net> writes:
> Thinking about role of Standards Committee in my favorite
> language (Fortran) I decided to hear advice from folks in other
> languages first.
>
> What is the role of Your Language committee?
I was a technical contributor to and Project Editor for
ANSI Common Lisp (X3.226-1994).
> Does Your Committee expand horizons and enlightens compiler
> developers with their recommendations?
This question is not exactly neutrally presented.
It is not the role of language standards to expand anyone's horizons
nor to enlighten anyone. It is the job of a standards committee to,
when a practice is widespread, standardize the means of access to that
practice.
> Or opposite, not being creative,
(Ah, so that's what the opposite is.)
> they are working like brake for language development and
> experimenting and in fact are negative among users?
Language standards do not define the end of creativity. They define a
stable base from which creativity might or might not proceed. What
proceeds beyond that is beyond the scope of a language standard.
> Do you think that compiler vendors and users themselves are not
> able to maintain backward compatibility without such committees?
The standard we produced is not about backward of forward
compatibility. It is about snapshoting a definition of the language
at a known time and saying "this set of syntax and semantics has the
following well-known name". Anyone adhering to that set of syntax and
semantics may say they adhere to that standard; anyone else is still
free to do whatever they want, provided they do not claim adherence to
the standard. A language standard is simply a "well-known name" for a
set of equally "well-known terms". Nothing more or less.
> And in general, do you see some analogies between Language Committees
> and other regulations in other areas of real life ?
No. Most regulations in real life do not involve voluntary adherence.
> I think these questions are of common interest.
I'll withhold a statement of my feelings on this.
My answer here would not be productive.
> This is post in several language compiler newsgroups,
> hence please mention your language unless you specially
> don't want this. You may find responds on other languages
> searching Deja with subject as above
Be sure to search all newsgroups since others, like me, might have
responded only to a subset of the addressed newsgroups.