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