Re: Standard Library Interest?

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

Be fair. We have not been suggesting that the cycle of ARM/Language 
revision be done at a faster rate. Just that a *library* (which doesn't 
change the syntax or semantics of the language itself) ought to be able 
to get updated at a faster rate. Yes, other language standards take 
about 10 years to update as well and I don't think that needs to be 
"fixed". But if you're going to have a library, you need to be able to 
let it grow to accommodate new developments in the computer world, so 
ten years is too long.

A good example might be if you had an XML branch of the library. XML 
itself is not under such rigorous control as the ARM so it is evolving. 
As it extends and needs new support, would you want to wait ten years to 
get it? An XML DOM would be a wonderful thing to have in a library and 
"Standard" in the sense that all compilers provided the same interface. 
So you'd like a reference implementation that all vendors used. You'd 
like to update it as XML grows and changes. If it were in the ARM, you 
would be SOL.

MDC

Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>
> 
>         Seems common in my experience... FORTRAN IV (F-66), FORTRAN-77, 
> Fortran-90 (11 years, then 13 years). I think there have only been two, 
> maybe three, formal standards for COBOL since the COBOL-74 standard.
> 
>         C was only standardized what, 1990? C++ was standardized when, 98?
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================