Ryszard Kabatek wrote:
>>> Does it make a sence at all to standardize a programming language?

I, David R Tribble wrote:
>> 5. It does if you believe that innovation comes from having common
>> tools and paradigms to communicate with, rather than a hodge podge.
>> Remember Pascal?

Matt Seitz wrote:
> I didn't find Pascal tools to be a hodge podge, other than in the
> handling of strings.  Yes, various dialects and extensions appeared
> over the years, just as they have for C.  But I found there was a
> stable core language that I could rely on.

I only brought up Pascal as an example of how standards sometimes
fall short of practical goals.

Pascal failed when it came to handling strings.  It also failed
when it came to handling I/O in a consistent manner; the ISO
standard specified two forms, the lookahead method and the lazy
I/O method, which were mutually exclusive methods for dealing with
interactive devices.  Which made it impossible to write portable
code that read input from the terminal.  This was not a trivial
oversight.

The differences in the various implementations of C prior to C89
were not as dreadful (since most were based on the Unix pcc and
on the Unix I/O model).  And the differences were easier to live
with because C had conditional compilation.


> But assuming for the sake of argument there was a hodge podge of
> Pascal tools, you can't blame a lack of ISO standardization for that.
> There is an ISO standard for Pascal (ISO 7185-1982).  If the ISO
> standard for Pascal didn't prevent a hodge podge of tools, why
> would the C++ standard?

Because the ISO C89 standard was better than the ISO Pascal standard.
The latter tried to satisfy too many vendors simultaneously, with
the result that the differences between compilers was greater than
that between C compilers.  And since there were no standards for
things like string handling, everybody invented their own different
routines.  Even separate compilation units (modules) weren't
addressed by the standard very well; there was no portable way to
write library routines.  That's what I meant by "hodge podge".


> My personal belief is that ISO standard for Pascal did result in
> common tools and paradigms, and that the ISO C++ standard will do the
> same.

I'm not saying it wasn't useful and that it didn't serve a good
purpose.  Indeed, for several years the lingua franca in programming
journals was Pascal.  But eventually a more complete, more
expressive, and more portable, language replaced it.


-- David R. Tribble, david.tribble@central.beasys.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              ]

David R Tribble wrote in message
<3580728B.4C1F@noSPAM.central.beasys.com>...
>Ryszard Kabatek wrote:
>> Does it make a sence at all to standardize a programming language?

>>
>5. It does if you believe that innovation comes from having common
> tools and paradigms to communicate with, rather than a hodge podge.
> Remember Pascal?


I didn't find Pascal tools to be a hodge podge, other than in the handling
of strings.  Yes, various dialects and extensions appeared over the years,
just as they have for C.  But I found there was a stable core language that
I could rely on.

But assuming for the sake of argument there was a hodge podge of Pascal
tools, you can't blame a lack of ISO standardization for that.  There is an
ISO standard for Pascal (ISO 7185-1982).  If the ISO standard for Pascal
didn't prevent a hodge podge of tools, why would the C++ standard?

My personal belief is that ISO standard for Pascal did result in common
tools and paradigms, and that the ISO C++ standard will do the same.
---
[ 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              ]

The standardization process of C++ took a lot of years.
Now I see a discussion "how to strip the C++?"

Does it make a sence at all to standardize a programming language?
--
Ryszard Kabatek


[ 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              ]

Ryszard Kabatek wrote:
> The standardization process of C++ took a lot of years.
> Now I see a discussion "how to strip the C++?"
>
> Does it make a sence at all to standardize a programming language?

1. It does if you want last year's programs to compile and run on this
 year's new compiler.

2. It does if you want to write code that runs on more than one system.
 Especially if you're a third-party library writer.  (Standardizing
 operating system environments is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.)

3. It does if you like to write books about programming.

4. It does if you want to teach a programming language to college
 students and expect them to make a living using it.  Look at COBOL
 and FORTRAN.

5. It does if you believe that innovation comes from having common
 tools and paradigms to communicate with, rather than a hodge podge.
 Remember Pascal?

-- David R. Tribble, david.tribble@central.beasys.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              ]