Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Overused metaphors - Software ICs, etc.
Message-ID: <1990Aug20.225340.18754@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 20 Aug 90 22:53:40 GMT
References: <26C2AFDA.178E@tct.uucp> <1990Aug14.020240.9257@cbnewsc.att.com> <26CBEB20.5009@tct.uucp>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24

In article <26CBEB20.5009@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka):
>>1) Standards are, or ought to be, merely least common denominators.
>>2) Standards are not meant to accommodate revolutionary change.
>
>For both of these reasons, I believe that "standard components" as
>described by Dr. Cox will never happen.  I'd be happy to be wrong, of
>course.  But I don't think that the industry can make necessary
>progress if it is based on least common denominators and if it cannot
>accommodate revolutinary change.

Actually, I myself did not intend to be so pessimistic.  A standard
serves the useful purpose of minimizing *needless* incompatibilities
between products.  I was merely pointing out that standards, like pie
crusts, are "made to be broken." That is, one should expect a standard
to be eventually superseded by a more advanced and possibly
incompatible one.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.