From -3190019759607866525 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,9a6b7da9ba54eaea X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-08-04 08:11:45 PST Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!ark From: ark@alice.att.com (Andrew Koenig) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: C++ Language Extensions Message-ID: <26207@alice.att.com> Date: 4 Aug 93 14:12:29 GMT Article-I.D.: alice.26207 References: Reply-To: ark@alice.UUCP () Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Lines: 37 In article rfg@netcom.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes: > In short, compiler vendors DO invest in proprietary solutions, and often, > so do their customers. Why do you think that languages like FORTRAN and > COBOL have undergone several separate standardizations? One reason is certainly important: At least in the USA, standards have a well-defined lifetime. After that, they must either be revised, reaffermed, or withdrawn. So when revision time rolls around, there is a great temptation to `do it right this time.' I once saw a wonderful letter that recommended reaffirming the ANSI standard for flowcharts. The letter pointed out: 1. The members of the committee tried to find anyone who actually *used* ANSI standard flowcharts and couldn't. They therefore concluded that the standard should be withdrawn. 2. However, there were lots of government contracts out there that specified that projects should accompany their work by flowcharts that meet the standard. These flowcharts were invariably generated by programs that read the source text, were handed over to the client in big fat binders, and were then never looked at again. 3. If the standard were allowed to lapse, all those contracts would have to be rewritten, presumably at considerable expense. 4. Therefore they recommended that the standard be reaffirmed without change. The usual lifetime for ANSI standards is five years, I think. -- --Andrew Koenig ark@research.att.com