From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1ea19776e3073a96 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Geoff Bull Subject: Re: C/C++ programmer giving Ada95 a chance -- writing an emulator. Date: 2000/04/02 Message-ID: <38E6971D.3A8435B9@acenet.com.au>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 605470103 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <38e148e2.5089627@news.shreve.net> <38e19656.17008608@news.shreve.net> <8bs49i$baq1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <8bsm6k$ejp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E2B049.F12CFD39@research.canon.com.au> <8c4v6p$ggg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@telstra.net X-Trace: nsw.nnrp.telstra.net 954636652 203.35.118.1 (Sun, 02 Apr 2000 10:50:52 EST) Organization: Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 Apr 2000 10:50:52 EST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > In article <38E2B049.F12CFD39@research.canon.com.au>, > Geoff Bull 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