Re: Ada is getting more popular!

[Georg Bauhaus <rm-host.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>]

On 10/30/10 7:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Georg Bauhaus:
>
>> On 10/30/10 11:50 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that when they [DIN] talk about work on standardization,
>>> they refer exclusively to the bureaucratic aspects, not the
>>> technical contents.
>>
>> Can we get the agreements and compromises that a standard
>> embodies and then have them archived, official, permanently
>> available without paper work being done in a standard place?
>> Shouldn't we, at some point, follow standard procedures to
>> get what a standard is expected to be?
>
> I've got trouble parsing this paragraph.
>
> Anyway, I don't see value in standardization when the resulting
> documents aren't freely available

ISO Standards are freely available.  They are not stored
in dark caves, access prohibited.
They just cost money in most cases, like eveything else
does, too.  OSs, IDEs, compilers, ... (Yes, using GNAT
professionally typically costs money.)There's no such thing
as software production that doesn't cost money.  

But ISO standards defining major programming languages
either cost nothing, or they cost little (the price of a
book, e.g. in the case of C). Or draft documents are available
for free, if you need to get going.

> so that programmers have easy access
> to them.

What is "easy access" to mean?  Cost free? Immediately?
Integrated with translation tools?  Searchable with
the help of a computer?  Any definition will help.

> It's not clear to me why standardization needs heavyweight
> processes, either.

For critical assessment of program properties, a reliable copy
of a standards document is what you need.  Where do you get one?
What is the cost of making a standard available in this manner?
A standard is not the same thing as a manual, which might be
somewhat easier to produce, get right, fix, or defend.

As a low-cost programmer, I'm glad I have access to standards that
do not cost much.  Nevertheless, I see that standardizing things in
general needs costly negotiations: producers of standards compliant
goods might need to adapt their machines/tools/processes/knowledge to
the standards.  Negotiations entail processes. They take at least
time, and thus cost money.

So standards production costs money.  Who is going to pay?

If the answer is tax payers, then who is going to decide
which standard deserves what amount of tax payers' money?

If the answer is vendors, some do pay. Still, why would
they want to pay for something that doesn't let them do
what they want?

If the answer is customers, then that is the situation we see,
with one level of indirection (customers buy standards and
customers pay vendors, vendors buy standards and they
contribute to standardization.)

Granted, there is some voluntary work. Alas, voluntary work
is not sufficient, wikipedia demonstrates with its donation
weeks and with its established organizations.