Topic: $18 ???
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/08/09 Raw View
In article <398F8F2A.4F3A8B7D@aspi.net>, Trevor L. Jackson, III
<fullmoon@aspi.net> writes
>The typical book publishing model (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the author
>owns the rights and, by an explicit contract, sells some of them to the
>publisher. The standards setting model is completely unrelated to the
>publishing
>model as far as intellectual property goes.
You have a limited number of publishers (even fewer since Pearson
Educational took over AW and Prentice Hall - which was already
responsible for many other imprints). In reality an author of a book on
C++ has two or three main publishers and a bundle of small players +
self publication. Those seeking a Standard have two or three main
options (Java tried ISO and ECMA) + a bundle of small players, industry
consortia and self publication.
I do not see the difference.
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: kanze@gabi-soft.de
Date: 2000/08/09 Raw View
Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> In article <398F8F2A.4F3A8B7D@aspi.net>, Trevor L. Jackson, III
|> <fullmoon@aspi.net> writes
|> >The typical book publishing model (correct me if I'm wrong) is that
|> >the author owns the rights and, by an explicit contract, sells some
|> >of them to the publisher. The standards setting model is
|> >completely unrelated to the publishing model as far as intellectual
|> >property goes.
|> You have a limited number of publishers (even fewer since Pearson
|> Educational took over AW and Prentice Hall - which was already
|> responsible for many other imprints). In reality an author of a book
|> on C++ has two or three main publishers and a bundle of small
|> players + self publication. Those seeking a Standard have two or
|> three main options (Java tried ISO and ECMA) + a bundle of small
|> players, industry consortia and self publication.
The actual procedure is also normally quite similar: someone goes to the
publisher with a proposal for a project. If the publisher accepts, the
book is written and is published. There are really only two
differences:
- Normally, with a book, the proposal comes from the author, and is
much more detailed than the proposal for a standard.
- ISO goes much further in ensuring that a large number of people are
involved. (Good publishers also have their books refereed by a
certain number of people before publication, but the number is never
as large as the number of participants in a standard.)
It's really this second point which makes the difference.
--=20
James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net>
Date: 2000/08/08 Raw View
kanze@gabi-soft.de wrote:
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> writes:
>
> |> Dietmar Kuehl wrote:
>
> |> > In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
> |> > "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
> |> > > But, given there is no alternative source of standard information,
> |> > > and thus no market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options) to
> |> > > pay whatever is asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced is
> |> > > the issue.
>
> |> > Except that it isn't true: You can get information eg. on C++ from a
> |> > wide range of resources, many of them are very well in line with the
> |> > standards document. Of course, you can claim that Addison-Wesley also
> |> > holds a monopoly eg. on "The C++ Programming Language", B.Stroustrup,
> |> > Addison-Wesley, and thus you are forced to pay them for this book if
> |> > you want to have it.
>
> |> That's not a monopoly, that simple ownership. How would you feel if
> |> Addison-Wesley had a true monopoly, in that other publishers were
> |> second tier by virtue of their "unofficial" (i.e., non-standard)
> |> status, and authors of works published by Addison Wesley were not
> |> compensated for their effort?
>
> Before the ISO standard, the de facto standard for C++ was the ARM. And
> Addison Wesley had a monopoly on it; others could sell C++ books (just
> as they can today), but only Addison Wesley could sell the ARM.
I'm sorry but that's not a monopoly but simple ownership. I presume the author
of the text in question was adequately compensated for his efforts, or he would
have gone to a different publisher. The inability to choose another publisher is
a distinguishing characteristic of the standards monopoly against book publishing
non-monopoly.
The typical book publishing model (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the author
owns the rights and, by an explicit contract, sells some of them to the
publisher. The standards setting model is completely unrelated to the publishing
model as far as intellectual property goes.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: kanze@gabi-soft.de
Date: 2000/08/05 Raw View
ark@research.att.com (Andrew Koenig) writes:
|> In article <MPG.13e7f1f6a338b4e1989a04@news.mindspring.com>,
|> Jerry Coffin <jcoffin@taeus.com> wrote:
|> >If we're going to get technical: ANSI charges for it. It just=20
|> >happens that in this particular case, you can also obtain it by othe=
r=20
|> >avenues for free. Unless I'm badly mistaken a statement in what you=
=20
|> >quoted is a bit wrong as well: AFAIK, the ISO never sells language=20
|> >(or any other) standards directly. Standards sales are left to=20
|> >member organizations such as ANSI, BSI, etc.
|> Not true. You can order standards directly from ISO at www.iso.ch
But do they actually sell it, or do they just forward the order on to
the relevant national body? (I ordered my original copy of the C
standard from them, many years back. It was delivered and billed by
AFNOR.)
--=20
James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: kanze@gabi-soft.de
Date: 2000/08/05 Raw View
Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> writes:
|> In article <8lp3kr$8uh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alf P. Steinbach
|> <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> writes
|> >Aside from that the question is based on two probably false
|> >assumption. (1) ISO is not, AFAIK, a commercial organization.
|> >(2) It does not follow that all standards, or even most standards,
|> >should be published for free.
|> ISO may or may not be a commercial organisation (I do not know) but
|> many, if not all, its constituent 'National Bodies' most certainly ar=
e.
Are you sure? AFNOR went from being a government sponsered organization
to an organziation "sans but lucratif" (a non-profit organization, in
American English), but is certainly not "commercial" in the sense I
understand the word. DIN is also non-profit; I don't know whether it
also has government subsidies or not, but it is certainly not
commercial, in the sense the Microsoft or Sun are.
Am I misunderstanding your use of commercial, or is BSI really supposed
to turn a profit for its owners (and if so, who are the owners)?
--=20
James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: kanze@gabi-soft.de
Date: 2000/08/07 Raw View
Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> writes:
|> First, as far as I've been able to tell from discussions here and in
|> comp.std.c, the money we pay for the standard *doesn't* go to the
|> people who actually did the work of writing it. I'd feel better abou=
t
|> it if it did.
Very little of the money you pay for a technical book ends up in the
writers pockets either.
|> Second, a standard document creates a monopoly in a way that an
|> ordinary book doesn't. If I don't want to pay for a copy of
|> Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language", I can always shop around
|> for other books about C++. But the standard is *the* standard; there
|> is no substitute for it. (And despite what some others have said,
|> it's not just for compiler writers.)
Agreed. The standard is a public service, and not a commercial
product. As such, other rules apply.
Still, you have to pay for (some) public services as well. Here in
Frankfurt, for example, garbage removal is a public service, and a
monopoly, yet I still get assessed a certain sum for it.
|> Now even given this, you can argue that $18 is still a reasonable
|> price, and I'm not sure I disagree. The current situation is
|> certainly better than having only hard copies available for several
|> hundred dollars. But I believe it would be better for the C++
|> community as a whole if the standard were freely available.
In the best of all possible worlds...
As you say, the current situation represents an enormous improvement
over the past.
--=20
James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/08/07 Raw View
In article <86hf8zvkyf.fsf@gabi-soft.de>, kanze@gabi-soft.de writes
>Are you sure? AFNOR went from being a government sponsered organization
>to an organziation "sans but lucratif" (a non-profit organization, in
>American English), but is certainly not "commercial" in the sense I
>understand the word. DIN is also non-profit; I don't know whether it
>also has government subsidies or not, but it is certainly not
>commercial, in the sense the Microsoft or Sun are.
>
>Am I misunderstanding your use of commercial, or is BSI really supposed
>to turn a profit for its owners (and if so, who are the owners)?
I believe that BSI is now either already or about to be 'privatised' and
then it will have share holders who will own it (or own the company
providing the service)
Government owned or subsidised is at one end of the spectrum, and many
Europeans assume that is the way NB should work (I actually agree with
the sentiment). Not for profit is something else because that hides the
rider that it is 'not for loss' either. Quite a lot of companies are
not-for-profit (certainly many academic book publishers used to come
under that heading).
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: kanze@gabi-soft.de
Date: 2000/08/07 Raw View
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> writes:
|> Dietmar Kuehl wrote:
|> > In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
|> > "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
|> > > But, given there is no alternative source of standard information=
,
|> > > and thus no market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options=
) to
|> > > pay whatever is asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced=
is
|> > > the issue.
|> > Except that it isn't true: You can get information eg. on C++ from =
a
|> > wide range of resources, many of them are very well in line with th=
e
|> > standards document. Of course, you can claim that Addison-Wesley al=
so
|> > holds a monopoly eg. on "The C++ Programming Language", B.Stroustru=
p,
|> > Addison-Wesley, and thus you are forced to pay them for this book i=
f
|> > you want to have it.
|> That's not a monopoly, that simple ownership. How would you feel if
|> Addison-Wesley had a true monopoly, in that other publishers were
|> second tier by virtue of their "unofficial" (i.e., non-standard)
|> status, and authors of works published by Addison Wesley were not
|> compensated for their effort?
Before the ISO standard, the de facto standard for C++ was the ARM. And
Addison Wesley had a monopoly on it; others could sell C++ books (just
as they can today), but only Addison Wesley could sell the ARM.
--=20
James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
Ziegelh=FCttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Steve Clamage <stephen.clamage@sun.com>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
James Kuyper wrote:
>
> ....
> > I find it hard to digest the idea that the C++ standard is for ANSI or
> > such organizations to make profit or run a business.
>
> I don't think it should be. I don't think they are making a profit off
> of it. Can anyone tell me - are they a for-profit corporation?
They are non-profit organizations, but they have employees, office
space, and other expenses. Selling standards is one way to help
cover those expenses. The paper copies of standards are sold for
not a whole lot more than the cost of printing and distributing them.
The cost of an individual electronic download is obviously not $18,
but the cost of establishing and maintaining the infrastructure to
make the electronic copies available must be offset. If you look
at their figures for the number of copies sold, the total amount
of money received does not make much of a dent in their operating
costs.
--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Steve Clamage <stephen.clamage@sun.com>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
>
>
> Implied: that the $18 or whatever per copy pays for the standardization
> effort.
No. See other posts in this thread. The $18 per copy might pay for
the costs of maintaining the web site that lets you download a copy,
but it might not. We're talking about only a few thousand copies.
>
> Example. Microsoft's documentation for Visual C++ contains a
> language reference section, which is some years outdated. This
> reference, created & maintained by Microsoft (I presume), is
> available free of charge, along with all the other documentation,
> at the Microsoft Developer Network site. Now if I were Microsoft
> (sadly, I don't have those billions!) I'd welcome the chance to
> substitute the real standard for the in-house created language
> reference. So I do think compiler vendors would be willing,
> and more than willing, to distribute the standard electronically,
> even if they had to pay a little for the privilege of officialdom.
I'm sure vendors would be delighted to be able distribute copies of
the standard with their compilers, and pay a reasonable fee for
the privilege. But past attempts to get ANSI or ISO to agree even
in principle have gone unanswered.
--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: gdemont@my-deja.com
Date: 2000/08/01 Raw View
Alf P. Steinbach:
> Implied: that the $18 or whatever per copy pays for the standardization
> effort. I'm curious about how that worked for the Ada standard,
> which somebody here mentioned *is* freely available?
Yes - as replied in another sub-thread, there are plenty of copies
on the Web, some of them HTML-ised. E.g.:
http://www.adapower.com/rm95/index.html
http://www.adahome.com/rm95/
One comes with the GNU compiler, GNAT - in annotated version.
The legal issues are explained at beginning.
> Perhaps DoD picked up the bill?
Perhaps the trick is that the Reference Manual and the
ISO standard are different things - although they have
almost the same contents. Differences are explained, also
in the ISO standard book. Ask it in news:comp.lang.ada !
______________________________________________________
Gautier -- http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/08/01 Raw View
In article <8ls9tk$l2c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Implied: that the $18 or whatever per copy pays for the standardization
>effort. I'm curious about how that worked for the Ada standard,
>which somebody here mentioned *is* freely available? Perhaps DoD
>picked up the bill?
In addition, a document that's effectively, but not legally, equivalent to
the ANSI Common Lisp standard is on the web; it's called the Common Lisp
Hyperspec, and was produced by HTMLifying the TeX source that was used to
create the ANSI standard.
I have mentioned numerous times here that if someone is interested in
making something like this happen for C++ they should contact Kent Pitman,
who was at Harlequin at the time, to find out how he convinced ANSI to let
him do this.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Jerry Coffin <jcoffin@taeus.com>
Date: 2000/07/26 Raw View
In article <yecog3mzts7.fsf@king.cts.com>, kst@cts.com says...
> Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> writes:
> [...]
> > Why? ANSI/ISO/etc. charge for standards for all languages. What makes
> > this one stand out?
>
> That's not *quite* true; the Ada standard is free.
>
> Actually, Global Engineering Documents will sell you a hard copy of
> the Ada standard for $221, but there's not much point in paying that
> much for it.
If we're going to get technical: ANSI charges for it. It just
happens that in this particular case, you can also obtain it by other
avenues for free. Unless I'm badly mistaken a statement in what you
quoted is a bit wrong as well: AFAIK, the ISO never sells language
(or any other) standards directly. Standards sales are left to
member organizations such as ANSI, BSI, etc.
In any case, it seems to me that this thread is reaching the end of
its useful life span. I think it all really boils down to one basic
fact: "because I don't WANT to pay for it" isn't really much of a
reason for demanding that some particular thing be free, and
ultimately, no real argument in favor of its being free has ever been
advanced.
If somebody else owns something and you want it, you either pay the
price they ask for it, or you decide to do without. The fact that
this is a language standard instead of an automobile or a meal has
little to do with much of anything. Ultimately, I suppose it would
be nice (at least for some people) if there was no money, no charge
for anything, no requirement for anything to involve hard work, etc.
That's not how the world works though, and and I doubt it's how the
world IS going to work anytime soon either, songs by John Lennon and
arguments for free language standards notwithstanding.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/27 Raw View
In article <8lk81v$l59$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
>That seems to be an argument from pre-web times. That is, from
>before the middle 70's (I'm not sure of the first RFC...). Consider
>NetScape, Borland C++, etc., not to mention RedHat Linux and
>associated software (and I've already mentioned the Java language
>spec from Sun -- and the success of the Internet must at least in
>part be due to the totally open de-facto standards, the RFCs, so
>expecting a similar effect for a computer language is reasonable): if
>commercial companies can do this, publishing everything for free,
>then *why* not an international standardization organization?
Because all those companies get their primary income from other products
and services that they sell. The things they publish for free increase
demand for those other products, so it's a win for them.
If all you do is publish standards, how can publishing them for free
improve your bottom line? What do you want, ad banners on the ANSI web
page?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: gdemont@my-deja.com
Date: 2000/07/27 Raw View
Barry Margolin:
> [...]
> > Why? ANSI/ISO/etc. charge for standards for all languages. What makes
> > this one stand out?
Keith Thompson:
> That's not *quite* true; the Ada standard is free.
To complete that info, let's mention two Web sites providing
the full ISO standard in hypertext:
http://www.adapower.com/rm95/index.html
http://www.adahome.com/rm95/
______________________________________________________
Gautier -- http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/27 Raw View
In article <WmDf5.39$hY.2966@burlma1-snr2>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
> In article <8lk81v$l59$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >That seems to be an argument from pre-web times. That is, from
> >before the middle 70's (I'm not sure of the first RFC...). Consider
> >NetScape, Borland C++, etc., not to mention RedHat Linux and
> >associated software (and I've already mentioned the Java language
> >spec from Sun -- and the success of the Internet must at least in
> >part be due to the totally open de-facto standards, the RFCs, so
> >expecting a similar effect for a computer language is reasonable): if
> >commercial companies can do this, publishing everything for free,
> >then *why* not an international standardization organization?
>
> Because all those companies get their primary income from other
products
> and services that they sell. The things they publish for free
increase
> demand for those other products, so it's a win for them.
>
> If all you do is publish standards, how can publishing them for free
> improve your bottom line?
One possibility is of course as you mention in the very next para... :-)
Aside from that the question is based on two probably false
assumption. (1) ISO is not, AFAIK, a commercial organization.
(2) It does not follow that all standards, or even most standards,
should be published for free.
As mentioned earlier in this thread, most standards are not
meant for individuals but for companies. A programming
language standard is very different. It's used by individuals.
> What do you want, ad banners on the ANSI web page?
Yep, why not? Or, ISO could (and perhaps should!) delegate to
compiler vendors and the general C++ community the job of actually
publishing the standard. At the very least that's a way to publish
the standard at no cost to ISO. Any of a near infinite number of
schemes might additionally generate profit, e.g., ISO could charge
compiler vendors for the right to be "official" distributors.
Just by adopting the viewpoint that it's possible and desirable
the ways of making money on it (*if* that's really necessary) tend
to suggest themselves, ad infinitum. I don't see that as a problem!
Cheers,
- Alf
--
alf_DOT_steinbach_AT_ac_DOT_com (clean the address before replying)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
Jerry Coffin <jcoffin@taeus.com> writes:
[...]
> In any case, it seems to me that this thread is reaching the end of
> its useful life span. I think it all really boils down to one basic
> fact: "because I don't WANT to pay for it" isn't really much of a
> reason for demanding that some particular thing be free, and
> ultimately, no real argument in favor of its being free has ever been
> advanced.
The obvious analogy is to technical books, which we expect to pay for.
For example, I've paid several times as much for books about C++ as I
paid for my soft copy of the C++ standard. I have no complaints about
the money I paid for those books.
But the standard is, in some ways, a different case.
First, as far as I've been able to tell from discussions here and in
comp.std.c, the money we pay for the standard *doesn't* go to the
people who actually did the work of writing it. I'd feel better about
it if it did.
Second, a standard document creates a monopoly in a way that an
ordinary book doesn't. If I don't want to pay for a copy of
Stroustrup's "The C++ Programming Language", I can always shop around
for other books about C++. But the standard is *the* standard; there
is no substitute for it. (And despite what some others have said,
it's not just for compiler writers.)
Now even given this, you can argue that $18 is still a reasonable
price, and I'm not sure I disagree. The current situation is
certainly better than having only hard copies available for several
hundred dollars. But I believe it would be better for the C++
community as a whole if the standard were freely available.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
In article <yec8zuozg78.fsf@king.cts.com>, Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
writes
> But I believe it would be better for the C++
>community as a whole if the standard were freely available.
I do wish people would say what they mean. 'available free' and 'freely
available' are certainly not synonyms this side of the Atlantic. I know
we have a living language but such abuse lowers our ability to
communicate.
One of the cases that I hate with a vengeance is the use of 'refute' as
if it were a synonym for 'deny'.
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
In article <8lp3kr$8uh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Aside from that the question is based on two probably false
>assumption. (1) ISO is not, AFAIK, a commercial organization.
ANSI is, though. I don't think you buy standards directly from ISO, you
buy them from member national organizations like ANSI.
>(2) It does not follow that all standards, or even most standards,
>should be published for free.
>
>As mentioned earlier in this thread, most standards are not
>meant for individuals but for companies. A programming
>language standard is very different. It's used by individuals.
Why? There's a whole shelf of C++ books at any decent bookstore, written
in a style that most of them can understand more easily. Why do they need
this particular document? And if it's so important, why don't you think
it's worth paying for?
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
In article <8lp3kr$8uh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Alf P. Steinbach
<alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> writes
>Aside from that the question is based on two probably false
>assumption. (1) ISO is not, AFAIK, a commercial organization.
>(2) It does not follow that all standards, or even most standards,
>should be published for free.
ISO may or may not be a commercial organisation (I do not know) but
many, if not all, its constituent 'National Bodies' most certainly are.
Trying to drag BSI into the 21st century is hard enough without
suggesting that it should provide standards for free. The real cost of
free standards would be extra costs to those who actually do the work.
Such costs would reduce the numbers willing to do the work and
eventually that will lead to standards that are provided by those who
have strong vested interests.
Please note that the overwhelmingly richest 'member' of J16 actually
lost its voting rights for a time in the 1990s through non-attendance at
meetings. IOWs they just paid the minimum fee and contributed absolutely
nothing. That is one reason why I believe compiler and library vendors
should be charged royalty fees (that can be offset against the costs
they incurred in participation). Unfortunately that requires an
enlightened community that recognises the both the value of and the cost
of producing standards. It is exactly because language standards are
relevant to individuals and very small companies that some way needs to
be found for them to contribute to the cost of producing a standard. I
think the worldwide sales of the C++ Standard are close to being a
condemnation of the professionalism of many programmers (I would be less
condemnatory if the sales of high quality, well informed, technically
correct books and periodicals were at least an order of magnitude
(factor of ten not 2 :) greater)
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Biju Thomas <b.thomas@attglobal.net>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> In article <8lp3kr$8uh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >As mentioned earlier in this thread, most standards are not
> >meant for individuals but for companies. A programming
> >language standard is very different. It's used by individuals.
>
> Why? There's a whole shelf of C++ books at any decent bookstore, written
> in a style that most of them can understand more easily. Why do they need
> this particular document?
Tell me which C++ book explains the details of templates or the rules of
overloading or Koenig lookup. None of the C++ books I have seen in a
bookstore will qualify as a language reference document. Ordinary
programmers (at least the ones who want to know what they are dealing
with) will want to know C++ works and currently there is no other
document on such issues than the C++ standard.
> And if it's so important, why don't you think
> it's worth paying for?
I haven't seen many people complaining about the cost of the document.
The major complaint was about the trouble of getting it and using it in
the form they have given it to us under their copyright rules. I would
like to see the C++ standard in an HTML format in some easily accessible
location on the internet.
I find it hard to digest the idea that the C++ standard is for ANSI or
such organizations to make profit or run a business.
--
Biju Thomas
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown)
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote in
comp.std.c++:
>Trying to drag BSI into the 21st century is hard enough without
>suggesting that it should provide standards for free. The real cost of
>free standards would be extra costs to those who actually do the work.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Given that the money goes not to
those who "do the work" but to the national standards bodies, how
would eliminating those payments increase the costs to those who do
the work?
In other words, what services do BSI, ANSI, and their counterparts
supply to the standards committees that are supported by the fees
they charge for standards?
(Please don't take that question as implying a position; I really do
want to know the answer. For what it's worth, I think $18, being
half to a third of the cost of any other book on my professional
shelf, is low enough not to raise any moral dilemma.)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
http://oakroadsystems.com
C++ FAQ Lite: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
the C++ standard: http://webstore.ansi.org/
illegal identifiers: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/cppredef.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
In article <39809473.F2649CE0@attglobal.net>,
Biju Thomas <b.thomas@attglobal.net> wrote:
>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>> In article <8lp3kr$8uh$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >As mentioned earlier in this thread, most standards are not
>> >meant for individuals but for companies. A programming
>> >language standard is very different. It's used by individuals.
>>
>> Why? There's a whole shelf of C++ books at any decent bookstore, written
>> in a style that most of them can understand more easily. Why do they need
>> this particular document?
>
>Tell me which C++ book explains the details of templates or the rules of
>overloading or Koenig lookup. None of the C++ books I have seen in a
>bookstore will qualify as a language reference document. Ordinary
>programmers (at least the ones who want to know what they are dealing
>with) will want to know C++ works and currently there is no other
>document on such issues than the C++ standard.
If there's such a demand for this type of material, why haven't authors
stepped up and written the books to fill this niche? Maybe Koenig should
put details about Koenig lookup on his web site. :)
>I find it hard to digest the idea that the C++ standard is for ANSI or
>such organizations to make profit or run a business.
That's what those organizations do -- they coordinate the standardization
processes and then sell the results.
To the person who opined that they would feel better if some of the income
from the standards went to the members who did the work, I've mentioned
before that they benefit indirectly: there's more opportunity for business
when your language is standardized. It eventually trickles down to the
individuals who actually participated.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
"Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
> In article <WmDf5.39$hY.2966@burlma1-snr2>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
....
> > What do you want, ad banners on the ANSI web page?
>
> Yep, why not? Or, ISO could (and perhaps should!) delegate to
> compiler vendors and the general C++ community the job of actually
> publishing the standard. At the very least that's a way to publish
> the standard at no cost to ISO. Any of a near infinite number of
> schemes might additionally generate profit, e.g., ISO could charge
> compiler vendors for the right to be "official" distributors.
I think that you'll find that the people you're trying to get to provide
support don't have enough of an incentive for providing it to maintain
the standardization effort. If someone needs a copy of the standard,
they really need it, and are willing to pay for it. ISO's site isn't
frequently enough visited to support advertising income. The costs of
electronic preparation are negligible, so farming them out doesn't help.
The key costs are the costs of preparation, and if ISO is to be
responsible for the standard, they can't farm out that part of the work.
The prestige of being an official distributor of the standard isn't
likely to be something that compiler vendors are going to be willing to
pay a lot for. Remember - compiler vendors themselves are a large
fraction of the intended audience for these publications. In essence,
you're saying that the only people that should pay for the the standard
are the main users of it, but that part of the cost they must pay is
that they should distribute it for free to everyone else. You won't find
a lot of customers for that service.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net>
Date: 2000/07/28 Raw View
Biju Thomas wrote:
....
> Tell me which C++ book explains the details of templates or the rules of
> overloading or Koenig lookup. None of the C++ books I have seen in a
> bookstore will qualify as a language reference document. Ordinary
> programmers (at least the ones who want to know what they are dealing
> with) will want to know C++ works and currently there is no other
> document on such issues than the C++ standard.
Then there's a wide open market for a book that does explain those
things. The standard is a lousy document to read for learning how to use
the language. It wasn't written for that purpose. Someone could and
should take the standard, and explain it in a user-oriented way, and
make money selling a book containing their explanation. The money they
earn will reflect the effort needed to translate standardese into words
that an ordinary developer can understand. That effort is considerable!
> > And if it's so important, why don't you think
> > it's worth paying for?
>
> I haven't seen many people complaining about the cost of the document.
Look at the title of this thread. I don't see "no copying" as being the
complaint. It's "$18 a copy!" that people are complaining about.
....
> I find it hard to digest the idea that the C++ standard is for ANSI or
> such organizations to make profit or run a business.
I don't think it should be. I don't think they are making a profit off
of it. Can anyone tell me - are they a for-profit corporation?
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
In article <MPG.13ea9031d9d4be3098b497@news.mindspring.com>, Stan Brown
<brahms@mindspring.com> writes
>Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>comp.std.c++:
>>Trying to drag BSI into the 21st century is hard enough without
>>suggesting that it should provide standards for free. The real cost of
>>free standards would be extra costs to those who actually do the work.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't understand. Given that the money goes not to
>those who "do the work" but to the national standards bodies, how
>would eliminating those payments increase the costs to those who do
>the work?
>
>In other words, what services do BSI, ANSI, and their counterparts
>supply to the standards committees that are supported by the fees
>they charge for standards?
They provide an infra-structure. Every ISO standards meeting requires a
National Body to sponsor it and provide a location and simple support
mechanisms. Beyond that there is the procedures for getting national
votes (so that standards are brought into existence by more than just a
group of people getting together over coffee:)
Actually, if you look at the total world sales of language standards you
will realise that they contribute almost nothing to these costs, which
may be why quite a few NBs are increasingly reluctant to get involved. I
think the sales of the C++ Standard through ANSI might just about fund
the costs of maintaining a web site. IOWs I strongly doubt that they
actually make a 'profit' but largely reduce the loss.
Until I got involved with the BSI C and C++ panels in the early 1990s I
had very little idea about how a National Body worked. Unfortunately,
commercial pressures round the World mean that even the limping,
dinosaur like behaviour of the past is going. The results are that work
is less likely to get done in the future.
You really cannot design a language through RFCs and Bazaar style
development.
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
Hi,
In article <MPG.13ea9031d9d4be3098b497@news.mindspring.com>,
brahms@mindspring.com (Stan Brown) wrote:
> In other words, what services do BSI, ANSI, and their counterparts
> supply to the standards committees that are supported by the fees
> they charge for standards?
Well, it is not that much, IMO, but still... As far as I understood it
they provide the facilities to supply standards, in particular in their
printed form (which they charge for significantly, though), they do
some organizational stuff like maintaining membership, sending around
notifications relevant to the members (eg. announcements of related
standards, due dates, etc.), and coordinating representatives. I guess
there is more procedural stuff they are doing. On the other hand, there
are not that much people anyway: It is my understanding that all
computer languages are handled by two persons which also handle other
stuff for DIN. I don't know how many persons other national bodies
employ...
I think the major problem is that the standardization organizations
have set up administration and procedures for standards in other areas
like mechanics and electrics. They work there apparently reasonably
well but don't really seem to translate reasonably to software
standards.
--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
<http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
James Kuyper wrote:
....
> frequently enough visited to support advertising income. The costs of
> electronic preparation are negligible, so farming them out doesn't help.
That was supposed to be "electronic distribution". Sorry.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
In article <3980D5D4.C9931D3E@wizard.net>,
James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net> wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
> > In article <WmDf5.39$hY.2966@burlma1-snr2>,
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
> ....
> > > What do you want, ad banners on the ANSI web page?
> >
> > Yep, why not? Or, ISO could (and perhaps should!) delegate to
> > compiler vendors and the general C++ community the job of actually
> > publishing the standard. At the very least that's a way to publish
> > the standard at no cost to ISO. Any of a near infinite number of
> > schemes might additionally generate profit, e.g., ISO could charge
> > compiler vendors for the right to be "official" distributors.
>
> I think that you'll find that the people you're trying to get to
> provide support don't have enough of an incentive for providing it to
> maintain the standardization effort.
Implied: that the $18 or whatever per copy pays for the standardization
effort. I'm curious about how that worked for the Ada standard,
which somebody here mentioned *is* freely available? Perhaps DoD
picked up the bill?
> If someone needs a copy of the standard,
> they really need it, and are willing to pay for it. ISO's site isn't
> frequently enough visited to support advertising income. The costs of
> electronic preparation are negligible, so farming them out doesn't
> help. The key costs are the costs of preparation, and if ISO is to
> be responsible for the standard, they can't farm out that part of the
> work.
Isn't that exactly what they actually do? And with largely unpaid
labor?
> The prestige of being an official distributor of the standard isn't
> likely to be something that compiler vendors are going to be willing
> to pay a lot for. Remember - compiler vendors themselves are a large
> fraction of the intended audience for these publications. In essence,
> you're saying that the only people that should pay for the the
standard
> are the main users of it, but that part of the cost they must pay is
> that they should distribute it for free to everyone else. You won't
find
> a lot of customers for that service.
Example. Microsoft's documentation for Visual C++ contains a
language reference section, which is some years outdated. This
reference, created & maintained by Microsoft (I presume), is
available free of charge, along with all the other documentation,
at the Microsoft Developer Network site. Now if I were Microsoft
(sadly, I don't have those billions!) I'd welcome the chance to
substitute the real standard for the in-house created language
reference. So I do think compiler vendors would be willing,
and more than willing, to distribute the standard electronically,
even if they had to pay a little for the privilege of officialdom.
Perhaps the sums would be very small compared to cost of
standardization effort paid by ISO. But I'm starting to wonder
whether we're discussing the pope's beard here. Especially
considering the Ada standard, *is it really the case* that
(A) ISO paid a lot of money to have the C++ standard prepared,
and (B) they're covering that and making a profit by charging
$18 per copy and disallowing copying, and (C) ISO needs to
make such a profit for every standard?
Cheers,
- Alf
--
alf_DOT_steinbach_AT_ac_DOT_com (clean the address before replying)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: comeau@panix.com (Greg Comeau)
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
In article <3980D763.61BE9C65@wizard.net>,
James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net> wrote:
>Biju Thomas wrote:
>....
>> Tell me which C++ book explains the details of templates or the rules of
>> overloading or Koenig lookup. None of the C++ books I have seen in a
>> bookstore will qualify as a language reference document. Ordinary
>> programmers (at least the ones who want to know what they are dealing
>> with) will want to know C++ works and currently there is no other
>> document on such issues than the C++ standard.
>
>Then there's a wide open market for a book that does explain those
>things.
The width of the untapped C++ book market, and of course the programming
book market in general, is enormous IMO.
>The standard is a lousy document to read for learning how to use
>the language. It wasn't written for that purpose. Someone could and
>should take the standard, and explain it in a user-oriented way, and
>make money selling a book containing their explanation. The money they
>earn will reflect the effort needed to translate standardese into words
>that an ordinary developer can understand. That effort is considerable!
The effort is indeed considerable, probably herculian. But worse is
that it's well misunderstood by many IMO, and perhaps why it may never
seriously ever materialize. FYI, I proposed the above as part of a
endeavor to a well know publisher and the net effect was that I was
more or less told that I was crazy (oddly though, they are now
incorporating aspects of it...sigh...)
- Greg
--
Comeau Computing / Comeau C/C++ 4.2.42 (4.2.44 expected soon)
TRY Comeau C++ ONLINE at http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
Email: comeau@comeaucomputing.com / WEB: http://www.comeaucomputing.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
In article <3980D5D4.C9931D3E@wizard.net>,
James Kuyper <kuyper@wizard.net> wrote:
> "Alf P. Steinbach" wrote:
> > In article <WmDf5.39$hY.2966@burlma1-snr2>,
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
> ....
> > > What do you want, ad banners on the ANSI web page?
> >
> > Yep, why not? Or, ISO could (and perhaps should!) delegate to
> > compiler vendors and the general C++ community the job of actually
> > publishing the standard. At the very least that's a way to publish
> > the standard at no cost to ISO. Any of a near infinite number of
> > schemes might additionally generate profit, e.g., ISO could charge
> > compiler vendors for the right to be "official" distributors.
>
> I think that you'll find that the people you're trying to get to
> provide support don't have enough of an incentive for providing it to
> maintain the standardization effort.
Implied: that the $18 or whatever per copy pays for the standardization
effort. I'm curious about how that worked for the Ada standard,
which somebody here mentioned *is* freely available? Perhaps DoD
picked up the bill?
> If someone needs a copy of the standard,
> they really need it, and are willing to pay for it. ISO's site isn't
> frequently enough visited to support advertising income. The costs of
> electronic preparation are negligible, so farming them out doesn't
> help. The key costs are the costs of preparation, and if ISO is to
> be responsible for the standard, they can't farm out that part of the
> work.
Isn't that exactly what they actually do? And with largely unpaid
labor?
> The prestige of being an official distributor of the standard isn't
> likely to be something that compiler vendors are going to be willing
> to pay a lot for. Remember - compiler vendors themselves are a large
> fraction of the intended audience for these publications. In essence,
> you're saying that the only people that should pay for the the
standard
> are the main users of it, but that part of the cost they must pay is
> that they should distribute it for free to everyone else. You won't
find
> a lot of customers for that service.
Example. Microsoft's documentation for Visual C++ contains a
language reference section, which is some years outdated. This
reference, created & maintained by Microsoft (I presume), is
available free of charge, along with all the other documentation,
at the Microsoft Developer Network site. Now if I were Microsoft
(sadly, I don't have those billions!) I'd welcome the chance to
substitute the real standard for the in-house created language
reference. So I do think compiler vendors would be willing,
and more than willing, to distribute the standard electronically,
even if they had to pay a little for the privilege of officialdom.
Perhaps the sums would be very small compared to cost of
standardization effort paid by ISO. But I'm starting to wonder
whether we're discussing the pope's beard here. Especially
considering the Ada standard, *is it really the case* that
(A) ISO paid a lot of money to have the C++ standard prepared,
and (B) they're covering that and making a profit by charging
$18 per copy and disallowing copying, and (C) ISO needs to
make such a profit for every standard?
Cheers,
- Alf
--
alf_DOT_steinbach_AT_ac_DOT_com (clean the address before replying)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/29 Raw View
In article <MPG.13ea9031d9d4be3098b497@news.mindspring.com>,
Stan Brown <brahms@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>comp.std.c++:
>>Trying to drag BSI into the 21st century is hard enough without
>>suggesting that it should provide standards for free. The real cost of
>>free standards would be extra costs to those who actually do the work.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't understand. Given that the money goes not to
>those who "do the work" but to the national standards bodies, how
>would eliminating those payments increase the costs to those who do
>the work?
The standards bodies would presumably increase their membership fees to
make up for the lost revenue.
Yes, you read it right: not only don't standards committee members get any
share of the income from the standard, they actually have to *pay* to
participate (although I think ANSI makes exceptions for individual
(i.e. non-corporate) members for which the fee would be a hardship).
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/25 Raw View
In article <8lh2do$at2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Reason 2.
>Charging for the standard -- conceptually the most basic info --
>creates the impression that actual exploration of the language will
>cost much more, that this is a "professionals only" language.
Why? ANSI/ISO/etc. charge for standards for all languages. What makes
this one stand out?
One thing that most complainers about this seem not to realize is that
ANSI/ISO never intended their standards to be used by ordinary users. They
expect most people to do things the same way they would if the standard
didn't exist, i.e. purchase retail books, use web sites, etc. The target
market for standards is organizations, e.g. compiler vendors; they might
have a couple of copies in the company library. They expect that a
non-implementor would probably only need the standard if they're in a
position where they need to do language lawyering; for instance, if there's
a legal dispute between a compiler vendor and customer over whether the
implementation actually conforms.
The $18 downloadable version is a radical departure from past practice from
them in the first place. Expecting them to give it away seems to be
expecting too much.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Date: 2000/07/26 Raw View
Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> writes:
[...]
> Why? ANSI/ISO/etc. charge for standards for all languages. What makes
> this one stand out?
That's not *quite* true; the Ada standard is free.
Actually, Global Engineering Documents will sell you a hard copy of
the Ada standard for $221, but there's not much point in paying that
much for it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/26 Raw View
In article <9iZe5.16$hd6.812@burlma1-snr2>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
> In article <8lh2do$at2$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Alf P. Steinbach <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Reason 2.
> >Charging for the standard -- conceptually the most basic info --
> >creates the impression that actual exploration of the language will
> >cost much more, that this is a "professionals only" language.
>
> Why? ANSI/ISO/etc. charge for standards for all languages. What
> makes this one stand out?
>
I think you answer that yourself, in the very next paragraph! ;-)
> One thing that most complainers about this seem not to realize is
> that ANSI/ISO never intended their standards to be used by
> ordinary users.
[snipped]
> The $18 downloadable version is a radical departure from past
> practice from them in the first place. Expecting them to give it
> away seems to be expecting too much.
That seems to be an argument from pre-web times. That is, from
before the middle 70's (I'm not sure of the first RFC...). Consider
NetScape, Borland C++, etc., not to mention RedHat Linux and
associated software (and I've already mentioned the Java language
spec from Sun -- and the success of the Internet must at least in
part be due to the totally open de-facto standards, the RFCs, so
expecting a similar effect for a computer language is reasonable): if
commercial companies can do this, publishing everything for free,
then *why* not an international standardization organization?
Cheers,
- Alf
--
alf_DOT_steinbach_AT_ac_DOT_com (clean the address before replying)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
> Trevor L. Jackson, III <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
> >Third, the outrage is not aimed at the amount, but at the monopoly. ANSI/ISO
> >are monopolists with respect to standardization. People tolerate this in the
> >interest of efficiency/commonality/etc.
>
> If ANSI/ISO are monopolists, how do you explain standards from IEEE
> (e.g. POSIX, Scheme), CCITT/ITU (X.25 and most other telco standards), and
> EIA (RS-232)? ISO is certainly the primary international standards body,
> and ANSI the primary one in the US, but they're not the only ones.
True. When do you expect IEEE or CCITT to come out with their C++ standard? Not.
Since standardization is by definition a kind of winner-take-all market, in that
everyone benefits from the singularity (uniqueness) of the standard, it's a natural
monopoly. (As opposed to an unnatural monopoly in which the monopolists need to
pay their customers to avoid using competitive products ;-).
So, what mechanism is used to price standards? Some are free, some are token, some
are quite serious. Since the widespread use of standards is the goal of the
exercise, charging much more than the reproduction costs requires some
justification. Are we to understand that $18/copy represents a return on the
investment required to create the standard? Is there any other sensible basis for
pricing copies of the standard _other_than_ reproduction costs and return on
investment?
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/22 Raw View
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:01:25 -0400
From: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net>
True. When do you expect IEEE or CCITT to come out with their C++ standard? Not.
But if the C++ community didn't like ANSI's policy about how it publishes
standards, they could have selected an organization whose policies it
prefers.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net>
Date: 2000/07/22 Raw View
Dietmar Kuehl wrote:
> Hi,
> In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
> "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
> > But, given there is no alternative source of standard information,
> > and thus no market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options) to
> > pay whatever is asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced is
> > the issue.
>
> Except that it isn't true: You can get information eg. on C++ from a
> wide range of resources, many of them are very well in line with the
> standards document. Of course, you can claim that Addison-Wesley also
> holds a monopoly eg. on "The C++ Programming Language", B.Stroustrup,
> Addison-Wesley, and thus you are forced to pay them for this book if
> you want to have it.
That's not a monopoly, that simple ownership. How would you feel if
Addison-Wesley had a true monopoly, in that other publishers were second tier
by virtue of their "unofficial" (i.e., non-standard) status, and authors of
works published by Addison Wesley were not compensated for their effort?
The cases are not comparable.
> The only difference I can see is that the standard
> is a collaborative effort from a rather large and varying group while
> most books are written by individuals or small groups of persons.
That's a minor difference. The major difference is that when we buy books we
have some confidence that those who created the book are compensated along
with those who distribute it. AFAICS there is no connection between the
payments made for copies of the standard and compensation to those who created
it.
<nit> The publication of encyclopedias requires the efforts of a vast number
of persons. Some may choose to contribute for the honor, others for the
honorarium. Point is the number of contributors does not make much of a
difference. </nit>
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/22 Raw View
In article <3977BA59.D7DCB27B@aspi.net>, Trevor L. Jackson, III
<fullmoon@aspi.net> writes
>That's a minor difference. The major difference is that when we buy books we
>have some confidence that those who created the book are compensated along
>with those who distribute it. AFAICS there is no connection between the
>payments made for copies of the standard and compensation to those who created
>it.
Authors are not always paid royalties. Sometimes an author is paid a
fixed fee, and sometimes the author pays to have work published. In the
current instance many of the co-authors of the C++ Standard have told
you to pay you $18 and be happy. Of course some might want recognition
but we consciously forewent any remuneration when we opted to work on
the project.
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: wmm@fastdial.net
Date: 2000/07/22 Raw View
In a previous article, Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com> writes:
>wmm@fastdial.net writes:
>[...]
>> There are other routes for standardization. JavaScript (and
>> now C#, if I understand correctly) are being standardized
>> via ECMA. Ada was standardized via the IEEE.
>
>A minor quibble: the IEEE was not involved in Ada standardization.
>Ada 83 was originally US military standard, later adopted by ISO.
>Ada 95, the current standard, is a freely available ISO standard
>(ISO/IEC 8652:1995, <http://www.adahome.com/rm95/>).
You're quite right. Although IEEE has been involved with other
language standards -- Pascal and Scheme are two (I checked on
those before this post :-) -- Ada is not one of them. I'm not
sure how that incorrect factoid got lodged in my memory, but
thanks for the correction.
-- William M. Miller
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free Usenet News via the Web -----
----- http://newsone.net/ -- Discussions on every subject. -----
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email abuse@newsone.net
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/22 Raw View
In article <3977BA59.D7DCB27B@aspi.net>,
Trevor L. Jackson, III <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
>That's a minor difference. The major difference is that when we buy books we
>have some confidence that those who created the book are compensated along
>with those who distribute it. AFAICS there is no connection between the
>payments made for copies of the standard and compensation to those who created
>it.
True, there's no direct connection. The compensation that a TC member
receives is the ability to influence a standard whose contents impact their
bottom line. E.g. if you're a compiler vendor and you have an extension in
your compiler, and get it adopted as part of the standard, you have an
advantage over your competition: you don't have to expend resources to
implement that aspect of the standard and your time to market is that much
less. So even though you don't get any compensation from ANSI, your
revenue may increase or your development costs will be lower than your
competitions', both resulting in increased net profits.
Very few companies/people join standards committees out of altruism. The
costs associated with participation are an investment that pays itself
back.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
Date: 2000/07/23 Raw View
Hi,
In article <V8%d5.82$1E4.394@burlma1-snr2>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net> wrote:
> The costs associated with participation are an investment that pays
> itself back.
On my very first meeting I attended (only partially due to lack of
monetary resources) Francis Glassborrow pointed something out to me
which I think is very true: You will have a hard time finding any C++
course where you learn more at comparable costs as attending a C++
committee meeting. This does not only apply to the time in committee
but to the time spent talking at the breaks, the bar, etc. Thus, the
meetings themselves already pay back the investment!
--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
<http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf_steinbach@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/24 Raw View
In article <L0bXxJAdQXd5EwGs@robinton.demon.co.uk>,
Francis Glassborow <francisG@robinton.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Various arguments why it's reasonable to charge for the standard,
snipped].
Instead of the standard, I rely on the compiler documentation and
the CD2. Why don't I order umpteen copies of the standard? Because
(a) the cost and inconvenience would be too great compared to a few
insignificant corrections to the CD2 (and I only use the CD2 when I
feel the compiler docs may be incorrect), and (b) if a piece of code
is such that the standard is required to make sense of it, then I
think it's better to redesign & rewrite that code.
Yet, having the standard freely available on the net is significant.
Reason 1.
As far as I know the Java language does not yet have a standard, but
the language specification is freely available. I guess that for
students this can be really important. If students follow the
same route as some professionals (e.g. myself...) then, in the
absence of "up front" available information they may come to believe
that, e.g., operator new by default returns NULL in case of error,
but can be configured to instead throw an xalloc (sic) exception.
Reason 2.
Charging for the standard -- conceptually the most basic info --
creates the impression that actual exploration of the language will
cost much more, that this is a "professionals only" language.
Reason 3.
Charging for such basic information is seen by many (including
myself) as immoral and just plain wrong. Bad vibes. Of course,
as Heinlein argued once, it's not self-evident that *air* should
be free of charge, and in some situations it may be better to
require air-users to pay for their consumption -- but I think
most people would see that as an intermediate solution adopted
only as a means to (asap) establish a free air society.
Cheers,
- Alf
--
alf_DOT_steinbach_AT_ac_DOT_com (clean the address before replying)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (Ali Rahimi)
Date: 2000/07/25 Raw View
In article <nevin-2C54BB.11173420072000@news.enteract.com>,
Nevin :-\] Liber <nevin@enteract.com> wrote:
>Where can I read about that dogma? Is it in "The Cathedral and the
>Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental
>Revolutionary", published by O'Reilly Linux for $19.95?
>You must currently be using one of those other open languages. Maybe
>Perl, as described in "Programming Perl" for $44.95 published by
>O'Reilly. Or maybe you are a ksh programmer, as found in "The New
>KornShell Command And Programming Language" at $55 from Prentice-Hall.
>I personally prefer "The Icon Programming Language" at $34.95 by
>Peer-to-Peer Commuunications. You might want to try Python, documented
>in "Python Essential Reference" at $34.95 from New Riders Publishing.
I normally don't bite at rhetoric like this, but i think your point
illustrates my case well. please see:
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/
http://www.perl.com/CPAN-local/doc/manual/html/index.html
http://www.python.org/doc/current/download.html
(and of course, i could go on...)
these are all authoritative. also, whatever i can't find in these docs,
i can find by looking at the authoritative source.
>This is a wonderful opportunity for you to contribute. I'd suggest that
>you buy the C++ standard, then devote a few months to writing (not
>plagerizing) a book about the language, then give it away to all of us.
it wouldn't be authoritative.
> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@enteract.com> (773) 961-1620
i hope your web browsing hand (the one you would normally use to operate
a search engine) heals quickly. wouldn't want you to miss out on the
internet revolution.
Ali.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (Ali Rahimi)
Date: 2000/07/19 Raw View
I've been meaning to ask about this for a while now, but I've held off.
I'm finding myself sufficiently inconvenienced today that I feel like I
should say something.
I used to be able to go to cygnus's web page and always find an answer
to my C++ questions by looking at the draft. To my surprise, I've discovered
that the 1997 version of the document is no longer avaiable and that I need
to pay $18 if I want to find out up-to-date information about the language
I'm using.
Now, I understand that $18 is a reasonable cost for shipping and handling of
a paper document, but for crying outloud, the document USED TO BE THERE,
IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, FOR FREE, AND THEY TOOK IT OFF. That's just
inconvenient and completely against every dogma of the modern software world.
I'm having to tell people that the programming language I'm using IS NOT
OPEN, that there is an $18 cost for the privilege of mastering it. In a world
which espouses open standards and confounds Microsoft for closed standards,
I find such practices barbaric and borderline unethical, not to mention
very inconvenient.
So could someone please provide a rationale for why as a user, I'm having
to pay money? The most disappointing answer would be that I'm
supporting ISO by paying them $18 of royalty for using a language they
helped standardize. The most pleasant answer would be that I'm being a dunce
and that I just don't know where to find the document online.
Thank you for any clarifications,
Ali.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Niklas Mellin <nimel@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/19 Raw View
In article <8l2ueg$ji5$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (Ali Rahimi) wrote:
[...]
> Now, I understand that $18 is a reasonable cost for shipping
> and handling of a paper document, but for crying outloud, the
> document USED TO BE THERE, IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, FOR FREE, AND
> THEY TOOK IT OFF.
[...]
> That's just inconvenient and completely
> against every dogma of the modern software world. I'm having
> to tell people that the programming language I'm using IS NOT
> OPEN, that there is an $18 cost for the privilege of
> mastering it. In a world which espouses open standards and
> confounds Microsoft for closed standards, I find such practices
> barbaric and borderline unethical, not to mention very
> inconvenient.
>
> So could someone please provide a rationale for why as a user,
> I'm having to pay money?
Flame bait?
Just a few comments: The answer to your question is in the FAQ
section B.4. Perhaps the moderators should have stopped your
article...
The statement that the standard used to be free is just plain wrong.
It was the draft standard that was free, and that was not the same
document. And if you can't afford $18, why didn't you download the
draft to your computer while it still was out there?
/Niklas Mellin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Francis Glassborow <francis@robinton.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/19 Raw View
In article <8l2ueg$ji5$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Ali Rahimi
<ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> writes
>Now, I understand that $18 is a reasonable cost for shipping and handling of
>a paper document, but for crying outloud, the document USED TO BE THERE,
>IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, FOR FREE, AND THEY TOOK IT OFF.
No, this is your first error, the Standard has never been free. What was
provided was a pre-standard document made public for the purpose that
the public could comment on it. As a result of those comments changes
were made prior to release. There were also earlier versions made
available to some people who were contributing to the effort of writing
the Standard. These and all other documents were available for
'standardisation' work and not as formal descriptions of the language.
Think in terms of alpha, beta, pre-release and release versions of
software.
Whatever led you to the assumption that the standardisation process was
'open' in the same sense as the open software movement? It is open in
the sense that anyone with sufficient interest may participate by
donating resources such as time and money. That is in marked contrast to
standards that are developed by closed consortia (or even open consortia
where only companies can join)
>That's just
>inconvenient and completely against every dogma of the modern software world.
>I'm having to tell people that the programming language I'm using IS NOT
>OPEN, that there is an $18 cost for the privilege of mastering it.
And yet highly paid and exceptionally knowledgeable people freely (and
for nothing) help you acquire mastery in ngs such as this one. I thought
the basis for free software was that you did not pay for the product but
you paid for consultation (at high rates) Consider yourself lucky that
you get so much free consultation time from the industry's top experts.
> In a world
>which espouses open standards and confounds Microsoft for closed standards,
>I find such practices barbaric and borderline unethical, not to mention
>very inconvenient.
Excuse me, but
1) How do you even obtain for money a full and definitive description of
any commercial product (MS is no different from any other company in
this respect)
2) Have you looked at standard support costs on commercial products?
3) There is much more to the costs of producing a standard than the cost
of delivery. Free delivery in electronic format is the thing that allows
all the charge to go towards the requisite infra-structure.
>
>So could someone please provide a rationale for why as a user, I'm having
>to pay money? The most disappointing answer would be that I'm
>supporting ISO by paying them $18 of royalty for using a language they
>helped standardize.
And exactly what would be wrong with supporting an organisation that,
for all its many failings, still delivers the goods. And in fact the
money goes to ANSI not ISO.
What really annoys me about this type of attitude is that several dozen
companies and quite a number of individuals spent large sums of money
and a very great deal of time working on a product that you resent
paying $18 for. We also spent a not inconsiderable effort on the
political issues of getting the cost down to that level.
Personally, I would like to see a copy of the standard shipped with
every commercially sold compiler and $5 paid to the NB for the place of
sale for every copy sold. I would even allow compiler vendors to assess
these figures for themselves (too low an assessment would make their
product seem less popular and perhaps that would be reflected in their
future sales figures)
>The most pleasant answer would be that I'm being a dunce
>and that I just don't know where to find the document online.
Apparently the document has no value to you (economically the value of a
product to an individual is what they are willing to pay for it:) so you
do not need a copy.
>
>Thank you for any clarifications,
BTW, if it was of such value to you, why did you not keep a backup copy
of what you had? Perhaps it was not worth the cost of storage. Why
should Cygnus be doing something you were not willing to do for
yourself?
Francis Glassborow Association of C & C++ Users
64 Southfield Rd
Oxford OX4 1PA +44(0)1865 246490
All opinions are mine and do not represent those of any organisation
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Christopher Eltschka <celtschk@physik.tu-muenchen.de>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
Ali Rahimi wrote:
>
> I've been meaning to ask about this for a while now, but I've held off.
> I'm finding myself sufficiently inconvenienced today that I feel like I
> should say something.
>
> I used to be able to go to cygnus's web page and always find an answer
> to my C++ questions by looking at the draft. To my surprise, I've discovered
> that the 1997 version of the document is no longer avaiable and that I need
> to pay $18 if I want to find out up-to-date information about the language
> I'm using.
>
> Now, I understand that $18 is a reasonable cost for shipping and handling of
> a paper document, but for crying outloud, the document USED TO BE THERE,
> IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT, FOR FREE, AND THEY TOOK IT OFF. That's just
[...]
The draft is still online at cygnus:
http://www.cygnus.com/misc/wp/draft/
Maybe before shouting, you should have been searching ;-)
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Anders Pytte <anders@milkweed.com>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
in article 8l2ueg$ji5$1@agate.berkeley.edu, Ali Rahimi at
ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu wrote on 7/19/00 5:14 PM:
> I used to be able to go to cygnus's web page and always find an answer
> to my C++ questions by looking at the draft. To my surprise, I've discovered
> that the 1997 version of the document is no longer avaiable and that I need
> to pay $18 if I want to find out up-to-date information about the language
> I'm using.
Although I think $18 is a bargain price that I am delighted to pay, I would
be glad to send you a copy of the draft, which I have kept for reference,
even though I have purchased the final version. Send me a note.
But be warned that it is a draft and differs from the final in important
ways. It is probably wise to remove it from the server because reliance on
it has caused some confusion.
Anders.
--
Anders Pytte Milkweed Software
PO Box 32 voice: (802) 586-2545
Craftsbury, VT 05826 email: anders@milkweed.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (Ali Rahimi)
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
>Flame bait?
No, sorry, I meant this more as a rant (expression of surprise and
disdain?), and also, barring reasonable objections, as a vote to free
the standard. I was hoping to get a good answer, not flames (and you
kindly responded with the former). Mind you, this is not the first
time I've needed a document from ISO, and have had to pay quite a bit
for them, but this particular C++ issue is upsetting me.
>The statement that the standard used to be free is just plain wrong.
>It was the draft standard that was free, and that was not the same
I'm sorry about this. I was mislead by the opening line on
http://www.cygnus.com/misc/wp/
and have not bothered to gather any more information on the subject (the
above claims that the dec 97 draft IS the standard). In any case, the
point of that part of my rant was that the Nov 97 draft was taken away and
only the dec 96 draft seems to be available now. I'm finding this insidious,
if it was done to protect the sale of the standard.
>document. And if you can't afford $18, why didn't you download the
>draft to your computer while it still was out there?
I did serious C++ programming back in 96. Back then, I did mirror the
draft for easy access. Now in 2000, I'm doing C++ again, and I'm
finding myself in this spot. Besides, saying "we had a special
3 years ago, you should have jumped on it" is not a good response to
"please make it free".
>Just a few comments: The answer to your question is in the FAQ
>section B.4. Perhaps the moderators should have stopped your
I've looked at sections 1-4, which though are relevant, don't
provide a full answer. You understand, this is not an issue of $18,
or $1, or being able to pay by credit card or by money order, or receiving
paper or online copies. The issue is that the C++ standard is more or less
the only online documentation I have for a compiler and the language I'm
using now (I don't need a tutorial, I need an up-to-date reference). Since
I'm sure we all believe that open and free is better, I think there should
be a good reason why end users are having to jump through hoops to get
documentation about their language.
Since I wasn't around for the discussions that lead to the decision
described in section 2.4 of the FAQ, I'd like to ask: why not ask for
the implementors of the language to subsidize the cost, why not ask
more money from people who want printed copies of the standard, and
why not ask for donations or royalties from commercial sources and
let it all be free for educational institutions, and why not ask for
money for the privilege of sitting on the committee (as have other
ISO groups)?
I understand why I had to pay ~$300 for the MPEG-1 and 2 standards. I
guess their philosophy is that I pay to develop a CODEC, but at least I
get to watch the movies for free. I feel like with C++, I'm having to
pay money to watch the movies.
>/Niklas Mellin
Ali.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Stephen Howe" <SPAMGUARDstephen.howe@dial.pipex.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
Ali Rahimi <ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:8l2ueg$ji5$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
> So could someone please provide a rationale for why as a user, I'm having
> to pay money? The most disappointing answer would be that I'm
> supporting ISO by paying them $18 of royalty for using a language they
> helped standardize. The most pleasant answer would be that I'm being a
dunce
> and that I just don't know where to find the document online.
To me, $18.00 seems a miserly amount. I am not one of the standards people
but I am aware of how hard they worked over a number of years so that the
language is consistent. $18.00 seems a small amount to pay for all the
labour that has been put in to produce a standard.
My 2 pence.
Stephen Howe
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
In article <8l3sqq$m3f$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Ali Rahimi <ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>I've looked at sections 1-4, which though are relevant, don't
>provide a full answer. You understand, this is not an issue of $18,
>or $1, or being able to pay by credit card or by money order, or receiving
>paper or online copies. The issue is that the C++ standard is more or less
>the only online documentation I have for a compiler and the language I'm
>using now (I don't need a tutorial, I need an up-to-date reference). Since
>I'm sure we all believe that open and free is better, I think there should
>be a good reason why end users are having to jump through hoops to get
>documentation about their language.
ANSI is a publishing house -- they make their money by selling printed
copies of standards. They hold the copyright on the standards they
publish. They generally guard that copyright quite closely, and don't
allow member organizations to undercut them by publishing the standards
online.
I'm sure you would prefer free, online access to most of the books you have
to buy. But that's not the way the publishing world works yet.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
In article <8l4ujm$bsc$1@soap.pipex.net>,
Stephen Howe <SPAMGUARDstephen.howe@dial.pipex.co.uk> wrote:
>To me, $18.00 seems a miserly amount. I am not one of the standards people
>but I am aware of how hard they worked over a number of years so that the
>language is consistent. $18.00 seems a small amount to pay for all the
>labour that has been put in to produce a standard.
Indeed, $18 is incredibly cheap as standards go. It's less than half the
price of the ACRM that I bought over a decade ago.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
Hi,
In article <397568C2.84172EA@physik.tu-muenchen.de>,
Christopher Eltschka <celtschk@physik.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
> The draft is still online at cygnus:
> http://www.cygnus.com/misc/wp/draft/
The draft is significantly out of date and you should not use the Draft
to determine correctness or semantics of C++ constructs. The standard,
probably together with the resolutions to the defect reports, is the
only authorative source.
Concerning the $18: Apart from the about $800 to be paid for the
membership in the national standardization body (DIN) I'm also paying
several thousands of dollars each year to travel to the committee
meetings. Not to mention the costs in time spent at the committee
meetings and in preparation of the meetings. Thus, I don't really think
that $18 is too much of an effort to pay for the standards document!
--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
<http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net>
Date: 2000/07/20 Raw View
Stephen Howe wrote:
> Ali Rahimi <ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
> news:8l2ueg$ji5$1@agate.berkeley.edu...
>
> > So could someone please provide a rationale for why as a user, I'm having
> > to pay money? The most disappointing answer would be that I'm
> > supporting ISO by paying them $18 of royalty for using a language they
> > helped standardize. The most pleasant answer would be that I'm being a
> dunce
> > and that I just don't know where to find the document online.
>
> To me, $18.00 seems a miserly amount. I am not one of the standards people
> but I am aware of how hard they worked over a number of years so that the
> language is consistent. $18.00 seems a small amount to pay for all the
> labour that has been put in to produce a standard.
First, the labor theory of value is widely discredited.
Second, the money isn't going to compensate the people who contributed the
effort.
Third, the outrage is not aimed at the amount, but at the monopoly. ANSI/ISO
are monopolists with respect to standardization. People tolerate this in the
interest of efficiency/commonality/etc.
But, given there is no alternative source of standard information, and thus no
market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options) to pay whatever is
asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced is the issue.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: fjh@cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson)
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> writes:
>Stephen Howe wrote:
>
>> $18.00 seems a small amount to pay for all the
>> labour that has been put in to produce a standard.
>
>First, the labor theory of value is widely discredited.
>
>Second, the money isn't going to compensate the people who contributed the
>effort.
>
>Third, the outrage is not aimed at the amount, but at the monopoly. ANSI/ISO
>are monopolists with respect to standardization. People tolerate this in the
>interest of efficiency/commonality/etc.
>
>But, given there is no alternative source of standard information, and thus no
>market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options) to pay whatever is
>asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced is the issue.
Actually the same standard is available from several different organizations:
ISO (the international standards organization), and also its member
organizations such as ANSI (USA), SA (Australia), etc.
The very same document is available from these different organizations
at widely differing prices: $US 18 from ANSI, $US 20 from ISO (or was
that the price from IEEE?), and $AU 338 (i.e. about $US 200) from SA!
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
"Stephen Howe" <SPAMGUARDstephen.howe@dial.pipex.co.uk> writes:
[...]
> To me, $18.00 seems a miserly amount. I am not one of the standards people
> but I am aware of how hard they worked over a number of years so that the
> language is consistent. $18.00 seems a small amount to pay for all the
> labour that has been put in to produce a standard.
$18.00 isn't a bad price to pay for a copy of the standard as compared
to, say, another technical book of similar size and quality. (I've
already paid for the C++ standard, and I'm just about to pay for the C
standard.) But, does the money really go to the people who put in the
hard work to produce it?
Personally, I'd be much happier if the C and C++ ISO standards were
freely available. This isn't so much because I want to save money
myself, it's because I think the entire C and C++ communities would
benefit. I'd *like* to keep soft copies on a couple of computers at
work, on a couple of computers at home, and on my laptop -- but the
$18 marginal cost is (just) enough make me decide to have only one
soft copy. If I change my mind later, the hassle of having to buy
another license (as opposed to just copying the file) is probably a
bigger barrier than the price. I'd *like* to make a copy available on
the network for my co-workers, but I can't do that with the current
licensing. I'd *like* to be able to tell someone that the answer to
his question is in section X.Y.Z paragraph Q of the standard, but I
can only do that if he's also decided to spend the $18; I can't just
point him to a web page.
Yes, anyone who has a serious need for a copy of the standard can
reasonably be expected to spend the money -- but I think there are a
lot more people out there to whom it would be useful, but for whom it
just isn't worth the $18 or the hassle of ordering it. All of us,
including those willing to pay, would benefit from wider distribution.
Of course, that leaves open the question of how to get there from
here. The Ada standard (ISO/IEC 8652:1995) is freely available, but
that was the result of a special deal with the US government.
I have a vague fantasy about the people who would have worked on the
next standard getting together and forming a new standards body,
independent of ISO. (How much value does ISO really add to the
process? Don't the committee members and their employers pay the bulk
of the costs anyway?) They could produce a new standard following
procedures similar to those used under ISO, but make it freely
available. ISO could then adopt it, but it would still be freely
available from the original body -- or from anyone who wants to
distribute copies. (There is some precedent for this. The previous
version of the Ada standard, Ada 83, was originally a US military
standard; ISO adopted it in, I think, 1987.)
I'm not in a position to know whether this is feasible. Since I'm
probably not willing to put in the work to make it happen (not that
anyone has asked me), you can feel free to ignore me on that basis.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Niklas Mellin <nimel@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
In article <8l3sqq$m3f$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (Ali Rahimi) wrote:
[...]
> You understand, this is not an issue of $18, or $1, or being
> able to pay by credit card or by money order, or receiving
> paper or online copies. The issue is that the C++ standard
> is more or less the only online documentation I have for a
> compiler and the language I'm using now (I don't need a
> tutorial, I need an up-to-date reference).
Good it isn't about money. Then I can recommend a much better
and much more expensive reference: Bjarne Stroustrup's "The
C++ Programming Language" 3rd ed. And it is probably a good
idea to complement it with something like Matt Austern's STL
book. Personally I have those, and a few more, toghether with
a purchased copy of the standard. The standard is probably the
document I consult most often, but that is only because I try
to follow the discussions in this group. For normal programming
Bjarne's book is a much better reference in my opinion.
> Since I'm sure we all believe that open and free is better,
I don't. I want to be able to make a living out of my programming,
and I can understand authors who want to be able to make a living
out of their writing et cetera.
> I think there should be a good reason why end users are having
> to jump through hoops to get documentation about their language.
If you buy a commercial compiler you will usually get some kind
of documentation of the language.
/Niklas Mellin
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
Hi,
In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
> But, given there is no alternative source of standard information,
> and thus no market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options) to
> pay whatever is asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced is
> the issue.
Except that it isn't true: You can get information eg. on C++ from a
wide range of resources, many of them are very well in line with the
standards document. Of course, you can claim that Addison-Wesley also
holds a monopoly eg. on "The C++ Programming Language", B.Stroustrup,
Addison-Wesley, and thus you are forced to pay them for this book if
you want to have it. The only difference I can see is that the standard
is a collaborative effort from a rather large and varying group while
most books are written by individuals or small groups of persons.
It is not true that ANSI holds a monopoly from another aspect: You can
obtain the standards from other national bodies, too. For example, you
can get a printed copy from the German body, DIN, for about DEM 450
(about $200 taking the current exchange rates into account...). Guess
who is selling more copies: DIN or ANSI.
--
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl@yahoo.com>
<http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: wmm@fastdial.net
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
In article <8l3sqq$m3f$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu (Ali Rahimi) wrote:
> I've looked at sections 1-4, which though are relevant, don't
> provide a full answer. You understand, this is not an issue of $18,
> or $1, or being able to pay by credit card or by money order, or
receiving
> paper or online copies. The issue is that the C++ standard is more or
less
> the only online documentation I have for a compiler and the language
I'm
> using now (I don't need a tutorial, I need an up-to-date reference).
Since
> I'm sure we all believe that open and free is better, I think there
should
> be a good reason why end users are having to jump through hoops to get
> documentation about their language.
I don't think that paying $18.00 to download a copy of the
Standard qualifies as "jumping through hoops." It's both less
expensive and easier than going to the bookstore or Amazon.com
and buying a book, which is what I usually have to do to get
documentation on lots of stuff. (I recognize that that's not
the focus of your argument -- "even $1.00 is too much!" -- but
I felt it was an unfair characterization of the process of
getting the Standard.)
As for why things are the way they are, there's a chain of
factors. Standards are only useful if they are unique and
authoritative; it's worse than useless if there are competing
versions. AT&T could have simply issued the ARM and said,
"This is C++!" as has been done with some other recent
languages. However, it was generally acknowledged that a
consensus process would be better.
For whatever reason, most major programming languages (C,
FORTRAN, PL/I, BASIC, PASCAL) have been standardized through
the ANSI/ISO process. Many of the people who were interested
in standardizing C++ were veterans of the C standardization
effort. It was natural then to turn to ANSI in standardizing
C++: they had the procedures and structure for developing
consensus and creating a single, authoritative standard.
The consequence of this decision was that ANSI would be the
owner of the intellectual property that was being created.
(This was, of course, transferred to ISO when the process
was internationalized.)
Richard Stallman and Napster proponents notwithstanding, it
is still commonly accepted and legally enforceable that the
owner of intellectual property is entitled to charge for the
use of that property. You may disagree with that system, but
for now, at least, that's the way things work. I think I
speak for everyone on the Committee in saying that we are
thrilled that the fruits of our labor are as accessible as
they are. As you point out, many standard documents are
priced well beyond the point where people could casually
pick one up, and the C++ Standard is a pleasant exception.
To summarize, the people who wanted a C++ Standard decided
to go through the ANSI/ISO process; even though that meant
that the resulting document wouldn't be free, it gave us the
best chance for getting a useful, unique, authoritative
Standard. I'm not sure what we would have today if we hadn't
gone that route, but I think it would very likely have been
inferior to the current situation.
> Since I wasn't around for the discussions that lead to the decision
> described in section 2.4 of the FAQ, I'd like to ask: why not ask for
> the implementors of the language to subsidize the cost,
They do -- as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, people pay
thousands of dollars a year to participate in the Committee.
The Standard wouldn't exist without those contributions.
> why not ask
> more money from people who want printed copies of the standard,
Nobody in his/her right mind would buy one. The number of
printed copies sold at the current price ($175, if I remember
correctly) is minuscule. Why would anyone want to do that,
when you can buy the PDF and print it yourself for a total
cost of maybe $50?
> and
> why not ask for donations or royalties from commercial sources and
> let it all be free for educational institutions,
There's nothing stopping you or anyone else from soliciting
these donations and using the proceeds to subsidize the
purchase of copies of the Standard by educational
institutions. The point is that none of these structures
currently exists; the ANSI procedure, including purchase of
the Standard document, does. And many people are quite
pleased with the results.
> and why not ask for
> money for the privilege of sitting on the committee (as have other
> ISO groups)?
As mentioned above, we do pay money for the privilege of
sitting on the Committee.
--
William M. Miller, wmm@fastdial.net
Vignette Corporation (www.vignette.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
Trevor L. Jackson, III <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
>Third, the outrage is not aimed at the amount, but at the monopoly. ANSI/ISO
>are monopolists with respect to standardization. People tolerate this in the
>interest of efficiency/commonality/etc.
If ANSI/ISO are monopolists, how do you explain standards from IEEE
(e.g. POSIX, Scheme), CCITT/ITU (X.25 and most other telco standards), and
EIA (RS-232)? ISO is certainly the primary international standards body,
and ANSI the primary one in the US, but they're not the only ones.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: wmm@fastdial.net
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
In article <39761A34.A7788A87@aspi.net>,
"Trevor L. Jackson, III" <fullmoon@aspi.net> wrote:
> Third, the outrage is not aimed at the amount, but at the monopoly.
ANSI/ISO
> are monopolists with respect to standardization. People tolerate
this in the
> interest of efficiency/commonality/etc.
There are other routes for standardization. JavaScript (and
now C#, if I understand correctly) are being standardized
via ECMA. Ada was standardized via the IEEE.
The original proponents of standardizing C++ (HP and AT&T)
chose to use ANSI as the vehicle (later merging with ISO
procedures) because they felt it would produce the best
results (in terms of quality, universality, accessiblity,
etc.). As a result, ISO owns the copyright to the document.
If you want a (legal) copy of a book, you have to pay the
publisher of that book. Does that make the publisher a
"monopolist?" Well, maybe, under some definition, but
there wouldn't be too many books published if publishers
couldn't charge for the "monopoly."
In terms of standardization, the standardizing body
pretty much _has_ to exercise a monopoly, or else the
standard isn't of much use -- if you have competing
"standards," you don't have a real standard at all.
If ANSI only sold the C++ Standard in its paper form
for their traditional fees, I would understand complaints
about abuse of monopolistic power. $18 doesn't give much
room for that complaint, IMHO.
> But, given there is no alternative source of standard information,
and thus no
> market, one is forced (by lack of alternative options) to pay
whatever is
> asked. The amount isn't the issue. Being forced is the issue.
So anyone who has a unique commodity is thereby required to
give it away for free? I don't think that's realistic.
--
William M. Miller, wmm@fastdial.net
Vignette Corporation (www.vignette.com)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Sergey P. Derevyago" <ders.NOS@skeptik.net>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
Anders Pytte wrote:
> But be warned that it is a draft and differs from the final in important
> ways. It is probably wise to remove it from the server because reliance on
> it has caused some confusion.
And what about the Final Draft: Reference number ISO/IEC FDIS 14882:1998(E) ?
--
With all respect, Sergey. http://cpp3.virtualave.net/
mailto : ders at skeptik.net
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: "Nevin :-\] Liber" <nevin@enteract.com>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
In article <8l2ueg$ji5$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Ali Rahimi <ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>That's just
>inconvenient and completely against every dogma of the modern software
>world.
Where can I read about that dogma? Is it in "The Cathedral and the
Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental
Revolutionary", published by O'Reilly Linux for $19.95?
>I'm having to tell people that the programming language I'm using IS NOT
>OPEN, that there is an $18 cost for the privilege of mastering it.
You must currently be using one of those other open languages. Maybe
Perl, as described in "Programming Perl" for $44.95 published by
O'Reilly. Or maybe you are a ksh programmer, as found in "The New
KornShell Command And Programming Language" at $55 from Prentice-Hall.
I personally prefer "The Icon Programming Language" at $34.95 by
Peer-to-Peer Commuunications. You might want to try Python, documented
in "Python Essential Reference" at $34.95 from New Riders Publishing.
>In a world
>which espouses open standards and confounds Microsoft for closed
>standards,
>I find such practices barbaric and borderline unethical, not to mention
>very inconvenient.
This is a wonderful opportunity for you to contribute. I'd suggest that
you buy the C++ standard, then devote a few months to writing (not
plagerizing) a book about the language, then give it away to all of us.
Looking forward to your free book,
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin@enteract.com> (773) 961-1620
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: John G Harris <john@nospam.demon.co.uk>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
In article <8l3sqq$m3f$1@agate.berkeley.edu>, Ali Rahimi
<ali@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu> writes
<snip>
>Mind you, this is not the first
>time I've needed a document from ISO, and have had to pay quite a bit
>for them, but this particular C++ issue is upsetting me.
<snip>
It's the tax payer you need to convince. Try getting your Senator to
change the federal budget. (I predict you won't succeed).
John
--
John Harris
mailto:john@jgharris.demon.co.uk
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]
Author: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Date: 2000/07/21 Raw View
wmm@fastdial.net writes:
[...]
> There are other routes for standardization. JavaScript (and
> now C#, if I understand correctly) are being standardized
> via ECMA. Ada was standardized via the IEEE.
A minor quibble: the IEEE was not involved in Ada standardization.
Ada 83 was originally US military standard, later adopted by ISO.
Ada 95, the current standard, is a freely available ISO standard
(ISO/IEC 8652:1995, <http://www.adahome.com/rm95/>).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html ]