Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!rutgers!cmcl2!lanl!lambda!jlg
From: jlg@lambda.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: FIRST public review - response finally
Message-ID: <14172@lambda.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 89 22:33:12 GMT
References: <587@unmvax.unm.edu>
Lines: 51

From article <587@unmvax.unm.edu>, by brainerd@unmvax.unm.edu (Walt Brainerd):
> [...]            but to claim that x3j3 did not address issues raised
> because you don't like the action taken or the response is not
> reasonable (understandable, but not reasonable).

I didn't make such a claim.  I don't like the action taken by the
committee on certain issues - that much is true.  However, many of the
committees responses claimed that the actions I don't like were in
response to my comments.  Clearly they either didn't understand my 
comment or they deliberately misrepresented my wishes - in either case,
my comments were not correctly addressed.

The POINTER issue makes my case.  My comment was addressed at the lack
of recursive data structures in the first draft.  The committees response
was:
     "Based on yours and many other comments, X3J3 has added a
      POINTER facility to the proposed Fortran language."

Now, although the new POINTER facility does permit the use of recursive
data structures, it is otherwise an abomination.  To claim that its
present form is in response to _MY_ comment is plainly untrue.  It is
as if I asked a car dealer for an efficient commuting vehicle and he
delivered a Mack truck - and then claimed it was exactly what I asked
for! 

Some of my comments were rejected on the basis of upward compatibility
even though they didn't conflict with the Fortran 77 standard.  At the
same time, two of my comments pointed out Fortran 8x features which
_DID_ conflict with Fortran 77 - The committee chose to retain these
changes anyway as this "represents common practice".  It should be
noted that the features I requested that they claimed were not upward
compatible _ALSO_ represent common practice!

There are other examples, but these suffice to make my point.  In any case,
the claim that my complaints are unreasonable is itself unreasonable.
Perhaps the disagreement here is over what it means to "address" the
issues raised in a public comment.  In my opinion, if the committee
claims to have addressed the issues raised, it should have done so
without misrepresentation or self contradiction.

Finally, your article didn't itself address my major complaint against
the committee - the lack of timeliness of the response.  It wasn't
even MAILED until AFTER the close of the second review period.

Please note that the general tone of my first public review was
positive.  Although I focused on the features I thought weren't as well
designed as they might have been, I generally supported the first draft
standard.  The second draft standard is a different matter though.
I believe that in most respects where the first differs from the second,
the first proposal was much superior.  My commentary on the second
proposal was completely negative.