Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!boring!lambert From: lambert@boring.UUCP Newsgroups: net.lang Subject: Re: Standardization Message-ID: <6349@boring.UUCP> Date: Sat, 9-Mar-85 07:02:45 EST Article-I.D.: boring.6349 Posted: Sat Mar 9 07:02:45 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 08:06:12 EST References: <322@gumby.UUCP> <7025@watdaisy.UUCP> <3744@mit-eddie.UUCP> Reply-To: lambert@boring.UUCP (Lambert Meertens) Distribution: net Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 23 Summary: Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL I'm sorry if this has been pointed out before, but I just came across the following sentence in the Revised Report on Pascal by Wirth (in the back of the Jensen-Wirth Book): "In order to provide a common basis [...] the language defined in this Revised Report is called *Standard PASCAL*." (So the discussion is about standards for Standard PASCAL:-) More seriously, it seems that the discussion on the topic can be summed up as: 1. Standards are useful, but only if they are adhered to (by implementa- tions and by programs). 2. N standards, N >= 2, is better than none, but less useful than a single one. (This follows from point 1, since the people adhering to standard B are not adhering to standard A.) -- Lambert Meertens ...!{seismo,philabs,decvax}!lambert@mcvax.UUCP CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Amsterdam