Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!chiba!khb
From: khb%chiba@Sun.COM (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: A New Way To Write Old Standards (Or: An exercise in futility)
Keywords: Standard standardization ambiguity revision
Message-ID: <83559@sun.uucp>
Date: 4 Jan 89 01:08:38 GMT
References: <583@mbph.UUCP> <1760@devsys.oakhill.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: khb@sun.UUCP (Keith Bierman - Sun Tactical Engineering)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 110

In article <1760@devsys.oakhill.UUCP> steve@oakhill.UUCP (steve) writes:

>>  claims about the current process not working, copied from
>>  a previous posting

>Ok, I think I proved my point.  We have a big hole in our
>standardization process.  And I think the problem is four-fold.

No you proved that the current system is misunderstood.

>
>1) We need to come up with a way to create standards that solve our
>   problems.  Our current system seems fine, execept see number
>   four below.  Many times it seems that standards are started
>   years after people realized there are needs for them.  Our
>   current process needs to be more timely.

This is often debated. The general consensus has worked out that for
large critical fundamental systems, quick change is worse.

>
>2) We need a way for ambiguity to be answered in a continual way
>   once the standard is out.  If there was such a way, the question
>   of 'Dubious Fortran Construct' could be sent out, evaluated and
>   the unambigous interpretaion answered and published.

There is. It works. You ask. You write X3J3 and ask for a formal
opinion, and you get one. The result is published as part of the
formal minutes. Even silly (and patently illegal programs) are
accorded formal treatment.
>
>3) We need a way to gradually bring a language up to date.  These jumps
>   from F66 to F77 to F8x are too jarring.  They cause a revolt everytime
>   they happen, wheather the revolt is necessary or not.

F88 is a pure superset of F77 just so this gradual evolution can
happen. Interested parties signed up to get the minutes of the
meetings and know how much effort went into defining a procedure to
gradually remove stuff (over a 20+ year period). It is far from clear
to me that you are bring up anything that wasn't discussed (and to a
small extent) decided during the last 11 years.

>
>4) We need a way to revolt against The Powers That Be (TPTB)  when they
>   force on us a standard (or ruling in #2) that is not to our liking.
>   If they issued a ruling that 'Dubious Fortran Construct' was illegal, and
>   most programmers disagreed, a mechanism must be in place to protest.
>   And TPTB that be must be responsive. I think the mechanism is somewhat
>   there, but the responsiveness isn't.

Give an example. I seriously doubt that any formal complaint to X3J3
would be ignored. I personally know of no such case.

>
>OK, I think I've laid some grounds for discussion here.  Let's discuss.
>
>P.S.  Since I come from a legal family I have no problem with a bi-headed
>legistrative, judical system.  One continuating pulling in new theory and
>users comments for a new standard every ~18 months, the other head coming
>up with the interpretations of the standard.  Revolts could be settled
>by having the standard writers address the function in their next standard.
>Of course the man power and time required for this is out of the question.

I think the legal system is a good example not to copy! 18months is
nearly universally held to be much to fast .... typical scientific
applications grow over DECADES. If the standard changes every 2 years
(allow SOME time for implementation) there will be NO time to ever
finish a project...one will spend all of the development time
re-certifying the underlying tools!

Let's see if I got it right..The points you raise are:

1)  We need a body to decide what is legal.
	
	We have one.

2)  Its work should be published.

	It is. Just pay for the service, and poof! It's there.

3)  There should be a way to protest.

	There is. Admittedly there is no higher body to appeal to. But there
	is no evidence (I know of) to indicate that one is needed.

4)  There should be more change (std every 18 months!)

	No. To the best of my knowledge no one has seriously suggested
	less than 5 years. 10 years was the agreed goal...which has slipped
	a bit.

5)  There should be less change (revolt ?)

	A lot of deliberation went into the current draft. The reason
	things are the way they are is because it was felt that a lot
	of extensions were necessary to the language. Nothing was left out
	(from f77) because running old decks is felt to be necessary to 
	for evolution.

It is very hard for me to see anything to discuss except points 4,5.
Clearly these two are closely tied, but since many minor hacks to the
standard would not accomplish much (except to tie up development) 10
year gestation times seem to imply "large" changes.
	




Keith H. Bierman
It's Not My Fault ---- I Voted for Bill & Opus