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

[Johnny Billquist]

On 2022-07-20 19:43, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-07-20, John Dallman <jgd at cix.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <tb68hj$132fp$1 at dont-email.me>,
>> clubley at remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP (Simon Clubley) wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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 ?
>>
>> For the C++ standards, the committee members are mostly from industry:
>> <https://isocpp.org/wiki/faq/wg21>
>>
> 
> That's an interesting list. Thank you John.

So we have people here who blame academia for language standards. We 
have people who blame academia for the lack of interest in Cobol. I'm 
sortof amazed by the ignorance. Cobol was ridiculed by almost everyone 
long before OO had even been invented. The fact there are still a lot of 
software around written in Cobol don't make it a good language, or a 
language that makes sense to have in any curriculum.

There are certainly some things you can blame academia for, but so far, 
complaints about academia in this newsgroup seems to most be out of 
ignorance. And people even seem to take pride in their ignorance. Oh well...

   Johnny