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, MSGID_RANDY 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: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: C/C++ programmer giving Ada95 a chance -- writing an emulator. Date: 2000/04/02 Message-ID: <8c7f9f$23i$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 605618778 References: <38e148e2.5089627@news.shreve.net> <38e19656.17008608@news.shreve.net> <8bs49i$baq1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <8bsm6k$ejp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E2B049.F12CFD39@research.canon.com.au> <8c4v6p$ggg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E6971D.3A8435B9@acenet.com.au> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x29.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Apr 02 12:43:28 2000 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 2000-04-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <38E6971D.3A8435B9@acenet.com.au>, Geoff Bull wrote: > 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". Sure, that is the informal meaning of standard, it is the meaning that is appealed to when you here an advertisement saying something like "moogoo gizmos, the standard by which gizmos are judged". But in the computer language field, it is helpful to understand the word "standard" in a technical sense to talk about something in the class of ISO or ANSI standards. Sure, Java has a standard in the informal sense, and so does every other non-standardized language. Since every language has a standard in this informal sense, the informal sense is not much use. So I reserve the word standard to mean a national or international standard approved by an appropriate national or international body. This is a useful usage, and corresponds to common usage as well. Certainly if you see me use the word standard in connection with a programming language it is meant in this technical sense. Obviously people can use words anyway they want, like Humpty-Dumpty in Alice, so I will repeat the statement, now that you understand it better, there is no standard for Java. Is this just semantics? or is it an important distinction? It is indeed an important distinction! When there is an international standard, there is a very strong pressure on vendors to conform, for example, the Microsoft C compiler is indeed compliant with the ISO standard, which has been prepared in a consensus process to meet everyone's requirements as best as possible. The trouble with an informal "standard" like Sun's "standard" for Java is that it is designed first and foremost to meet Sun's commercial requirements. This is not a criticism in any sense, for Sun to do otherwise would make no sense. Now to a certain extent, trying to be reasonably universal may be part of this commercial requirement, but there is no guarantee of this. The argument between Sun and Microsoft is a perfect example. An international standards body would give equal weight to the requirements of Sun and Microsoft (and IBM and ....). In fact Microsoft's requirements that Java interface well with COM and DCOM is a perfectly reasonable technical point to be considered. It is not at all surprising that Sun objects to doing something that would help Microsoft, and consequently it is not at all surprising that Sun pulled out of the standardization process. Proprietary standards are simply not the same kind of beast as international standards arrived at by consensus. Microsoft can't complain too much about Java, because they play the game of using proprietary "standards" for their own technology with the intention of maintaining commercial advantage. Probably the most helpful terminology is to use standard in this context to imply a standard reached by a consensus process among experts, and "proprietary standard" to talk about "standards" maintained by vendors to their own advantage. Note once again that it is not a criticism of Sun and Microsoft that they use these proprietary standards to their own commercial advantage. You could even make the case that their fiduciary responsibilities to their stockholders require them to take this viewpoint! Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.