From 5252712501313154004 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-08-13 04:35:40 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!olivea!sgigate!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!metro!news From: maxtal@physics.su.OZ.AU (John Max Skaller) Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions Message-ID: <1993Aug13.111153.26661@ucc.su.OZ.AU> Sender: news@ucc.su.OZ.AU Nntp-Posting-Host: physics.su.oz.au Organization: School of Physics, University of Sydney, Australia References: <1993Aug10.060148.27191@ucc.su.OZ.AU> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 11:11:53 GMT Lines: 82 In article daniels@NeoSoft.com (Brad Daniels) writes: > >Despite the potential nuisance as far as determining standards conformance, >I like this idea. There is certainly precedent for this kind of approach, >e.g. in the POSIX 1003.x standards and various ISO-9000 levels. Any head- >aches in maintaining a set of standard extensions should be less than the >headaches of trying to decide whether to include the extensions in a >monolithic standard. Later standards efforts could then choose whether to >let extension standards lapse or to fold them into the base language standard. >Extension standards would also help reduce the need for revisions to the base >standard except for clarification purposes, thus potentially improving the >quality of all part of the standard by reducing the number of issues the com- >mitte needs to address at any given time. > The problem is that instead of one committee we would have several working on different documents. There is enough problem now finding the time and money to work on one document. We're just a bunch of volunteers, many of who fork out their own personal money. If a second document is to be worked on, it probably ought to be for an extended C++ library. I am considering proposing such a Work Item to SC22. But the problem with this idea is that I for one could probably not attend any meetings of the people who would be interested in this item. I'll be lucky to get to another meeting of WG21 :-) In other words, turning something from a good idea into a reality costs time and money and manpower, and Standards organisations are not setup to collect this money from the people who would finally benefit from the research and development that would be required. They are set up to Standardise 'Existing Practice', and the C++ committee is already doing something a long way from that (necessarily) and thus has enough problems operating in an inappropriate framework already. The world and the role of Standards are changing, but the bodies involved in the processes are not keeping up. [Thats not because they dont try, but because its hard to obtain consenus on issues that are at the research and innovation level] Its no longer appropriate to just standardise existing practice: the costs of global non-standardisation are so high that manufacturing and marketting efforts will often not be made until a standard for interoperability *already* exists. So now, the Standards must come first, and their implementations second. Which means Standardising 'existing practice' is no longer a completely appropriate viewpoint. The problem of course is that 'planned' things are often abysmal failures (for example, planned economies). C++ is half way: its being Standardised at an appropriate time by an inappropriate mechanism. We just have to do the best that is possible within this framework. Breaking up C++ into 'modules' might be a good idea were there sufficent resources: it would accelerate the creation of some standards (eg core) at the expense of others (eg extensions). But there aren't those resourses available. So we're likely to be stuck with a compromise in both quality and timing. The long term costs of not allocating sufficent resources to this project are hard to guess at. But the short term direct benefits are mainly what the contributers to the Standardisation process must consider. What does company 'X' gain from committing resources to this project? How does X gain an advantage over Y who does not contribute? -- JOHN (MAX) SKALLER, INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au Maxtal Pty Ltd, CSERVE:10236.1703 6 MacKay St ASHFIELD, Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 NSW 2131, AUSTRALIA