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,f03f7958fe713ed1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: language standards Date: 1997/03/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 224495466 Distribution: world References: Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: [a lot of sensible stuff which is irrelevant to the (very simple) issue] > So, once again (reread my statements that you kindly quoted), my point is > that if there are many possible technical approaches to a question, and > there is no clear consensus on which is the best, then you are unlikely > to be able to standardize in that area. Yes, I know that is your point. That is _not_ what you put forth as your starting thesis though! > How that translates in your mind to me making a blanket statement that > there should be no language standards is still completely beyond me. It doesn't. You simply _said_ that very thing as your thesis. > I can't even figure out the chain of reasoning, perhaps it is something > like: > > Dewar says you can't standardize something where there are many approaches > All features in programming languages have many approaches > Therefore ... You are putting _way_ too much into this. You simply goofed in your starting statement of your thesis. It may have even been a typo! You simply _said_ that it was _not_ silly to say that all efforts at standardization were futile. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com