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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e276c1ed16429c03 X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.78.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!feeder.ecngs.de!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!194.25.134.126.MISMATCH!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 +0200 From: Georg Bauhaus User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada is getting more popular! References: <4cc6753c$0$23756$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc71e08$0$23758$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc87d7a$0$23755$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc912e1$0$23761$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <19rlit851kct1$.db26uwez2yg7$.dlg@40tude.net> <4cc94547$0$23752$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4cc9bf12$0$23765$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <15lnc6vv8z3hc$.1oi6i03umest8$.dlg@40tude.net> <871v7aqcpq.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <13rgisoyxwkb2$.1dpflsd9zyiz5.dlg@40tude.net> <4cca091e$0$7655$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <4h6j3lfp7x5l.zqrg45o56ci3$.dlg@40tude.net> <4cca9195$0$6978$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> <87hbg46mcz.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <4ccc1681$0$6776$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <878w1fy3lb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> In-Reply-To: <878w1fy3lb.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4ccc6bb9$0$6977$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> Organization: Arcor NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Oct 2010 21:02:17 CEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 4c78ffa1.newsspool4.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=R`e2AjZga6@lU`@c^jLCbJ4IUKejVH;Bi1XSQ]b4IkmkG@4ae]EL X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15952 Date: 2010-10-30T21:02:17+02:00 List-Id: 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.