Re: C/C++ programmer giving Ada95 a chance -- writing an emulator.

[Geoff Bull <gbull@acenet.com.au>]

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> In article <38E2B049.F12CFD39@research.canon.com.au>,
>   Geoff Bull <geoff@research.canon.com.au> wrote:

> > Of course, some will argue that a proprietary standard isn't a
> > standard
> 
> Indeed they will, and they will be right :-) A proprietary
> standard is a contradiction in terms (*). More to the point,
> if you accept the notion, then everything is standardized,
> since you can always find a proprietary definition for anything.
> For instance, are we to agree that all architectures are
> standardized simply because vendors provide reasonably complete
> and accurate definitions?

According to the OED, a standard is a "weight or measure
to which others conform or by which the accuracy or quality
of others is judged".

By this definition Sun's Java Language Specification *is* a standard. 
Most Java implementors are making big efforts to conform to
Sun's standard, MS being the notable exception.

I am not saying that privately controlled standards are a good thing.
I was just objecting to the claim "there is no standard for Java"
because, unless you twist the meaning of the word standard,
it is false.

Also, proprietary standard is not a contradiction in terms.
I could say proprietary is orthogonal to standard,
but in light of (*) I won't :-)

> (*) but not an oxymoron, being a charter member of the
> please-let's-preserve-the-nice-word-oxymoron-and-not-misuse-it
> club I like to take the opportunity to make this point :-)
> Yes, yes, I know it is a lost cause, just like moot :-)

Cheers
Geoff