Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mitel!sce!karam
From: karam@sce.carleton.ca (Gerald Karam)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: More fun with WG17
Summary: most of the major players in WG17 are vendors
Message-ID: <715@sce.carleton.ca>
Date: 20 Nov 89 18:13:53 GMT
References: <2609@munnari.oz.au> <696@sce.carleton.ca> <2643@munnari.oz.au> <1354@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> <2688@munnari.oz.au> <1794@syma.sussex.ac.uk>
Reply-To: karam@sce.UUCP (Gerald Karam)
Organization: Systems Eng., Carleton Univ., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 53

In article <1794@syma.sussex.ac.uk> aarons@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:
> ...some intro words deleted.... I
>must say that in general I find myself in total sympathy with
>Richard O'Keefe's comments.
>
>If Prolog were already so widely used that multi-million dollar
>business awaited the developers and implementors of Prolog systems,
>then production of a radically new standard for the language might
>be justified in that costs would be recovered.

plainly put, the end result will not be a radical departure, the current
versions of the draft are very much *current versions* that are being 
shaped into what should be a reasonably agreeable result. if it isn't
no one will support it.

>At present my impression is that NONE of the prolog vendors around
>the world would be in a position to afford major revision of the
>language along with software to help all their customers convert
>old code to the new language. There would be tremendous wasted
>effort with not much gain.

it might suprise you to know that most of the major vendors are represented
on the committee (BIM, SICSTUS, QUINTUS, IF, IBM and others that don't
readily come to mind, but don't be insulted :-).  it will be really 
suprising if the final standard isn't exactly what these people want.  
of course what vendors want is not necessarily what users want. but 
that's another issue.

>So the effect could well turn out to be that vendors go on providing
>more or less the old version (with perhaps a few useful extensions)
>and that would remain the DE FACTO standard, making the official
>standard nothing more than an academic curiosity.

with this many vendors behind it, i would be suprised if they don't
back the standard. it's in their own interest. 

>I have not read the latest version of the new standard, but
>Richard's quotations and comments leave me feeling that it is likely
>to diverge far too much from the existing widely "agreed" de facto
>standard, and, as he points out, would break too much code.

it is inevitable that some code will be broken just in trying to 
resolve differences between similar, but nonetheless not identical vendor's 
products. what do you expect?

-gerald

p.s. richard o'keefe is a contributer to WG17 by the fact that he posts
constructive discussion on the net where he knows WG17 people are
listening (reading?).  since he knows they have thick skins, he doesn't worry
about expressing his opinions in his unique style :-)

p.p.s. anyone can contribute to WG17 just send in your opinion!