[Info-vax] General Availability of 9.2 for x86-64

[Dave Froble]

On 7/19/2022 3:03 PM, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> On 7/19/22 08:37, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-07-18, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>> On 7/18/2022 2:16 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>>>> On 2022-07-16, Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>>>>> VMS Fortran and VMS C++ does not support newer standards - but those
>>>>> newer standards are used on other platforms.
>>>>
>>>> Devil's Advocate time: Does adding new standards to a language sometimes
>>>> make it so complex that it's better to start over with a new language
>>>> that covers the same usage cases ?
>>>
>>> I think so.
>>>
>>> But probably not in the case of Fortran 95 -> 2003 and
>>> C++ 98 -> 11.
>>>
>>> (Fortran 77 -> 90 could have been a case)
>>>
>>
>> As can what's going on with C++ at the moment.
>>
>> In the same way as the police have no motivation to reduce the overall
>> number of criminals in society (after all, if you reduce the number of
>> criminals, you reduce the number of police required), standards bodies
>> have no motivation to declare a language "complete", because if they do,
>> they will be out of a job.
>
> Or like Doctors have no reason to cure illnesses.  They make too
> much money treating repeat customers.  :-(
>
>>
>> I wonder if we've reached the point where some standards bodies keep
>> adding features for their own benefit (ie: to keep them in a job),
>> instead of for the benefit of the software developers they claim to
>> be working on behalf of ?
>
> A recent discussion over in the COBOL group had me thinking of this
> again.  His point was that something that should have been clearly
> spelled out in the standard doesn't appear to be.  I think it is but
> not where he was looking.  I would have confirmed this but I am
> unwilling to pay ISO hundreds of dollars just to read a standard.
>
> So this brings us to just what the purpose of standards are.  One would
> think that the desire would be to make them as widespread as possible so
> that people would actually use them, but no, we hide them and charge
> ridiculous amounts of money just to read them (and ISO is not the only
> one who does that!!)
>
> And what should be in a standard?  Wouldn't you think the standards
> bodies would talk to the practitioners before creating a standard to
> get an idea what they need and want in a language?  But, no, they
> write their standards in vacuums putting in things the practitioners
> didn't ask for and certainly don't want.  And then get upset when the
> practitioners refuse to use the crap they never wanted.  So then, why
> do they put it in the standard?
>
> And then you have all the stuff the practitioners wanted that the
> standards bodies refused to consider.  The result is vendor extensions
> with each vendor doing the same task differently instead of all of them
> doing the same way.
>
> I really think it is time to drop the concept of academia generating
> standards and create a standards body concept made up of and run by
> the practitioners of the IT world.  I think it would get corporate
> support because they stand to profit from it in the long run.
>
>
> bill
>
>

No, no, no, can't do that.  Too much common sense.  Can't have that ...

-- 
David Froble                       Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc.      E-Mail: davef at tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA  15486