chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (06/28/89)
In article <10466@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I have to say that I resent the tone of [ND]'s criticism. X3J11 >did an excellent job of standardizing the C programming language, Despite the razzings I give it as often as possible :-) , I have to agree. (I think my position is essentially the same as Henry Spencer's and Dennis Ritchie's, although we may all disagree as to the few things we think should have been done differently. Henry and I enjoy teasing in public. Dennis, of course, would never do that; as Founder of the C Programming Language, he has an Image to maintain. And in case you have not guessed by now, I am at it again. But this started out as a serious posting; maybe I can steer it back again....) >and you could have participated if you had chosen to do so. This might not be true. Consider all the requirements for participation. First, you have to know about the standardisation effort. Now, despite the sounds of protest I hear in the background, it is manifestly evident that a large and vociferous group of people had never heard of X3J11 until the noalias fight broke out. (Perhaps this has something to do with their vociferosity. Oops, digressing again.) Anyway, it happens that many who might have participated in some standard hear about it only when it is all over. Assuming you do know of it, what else does it take to participate? To be a committee member, you must be independently wealthy, or else you must find a sponsor. If you work for a company that sells compilers, you have a sponsor. If you work for a public university that uses the language, you might possibly have some way to cajole some dollars to leak out of the bureaucracy in your general direction, but you do *not* have a `sponsor'. If you work for a large corporation that uses the language, you might have a sponsor. If you are a consultant, you will have to spend your own money. And it does take money. Standards committee meetings, even for American National Standards, are held all over, not just the U.S.A. but the world! Only fair, perhaps; American standards have a way of forcing the rest of the world along, and there is much cooperation between the national and international standards organisations. You can expect to travel to California, Vermont, France, and so on. Of course, you can mix vacations with work. But the meetings also take time, which is to say money. Some $ here, some $ there; without a sponsor, most cannot afford it. Well, if you cannot be on the committee, at least you can influence the committee. That is what public reviews are for. What does it take for these? Submitting review comments is much easier. All you have to do is buy a copy of the latest draft---for a mere $75 or so---learn Standardese, read it from end to end, study everything closely, read it over again (better check it once more to be sure), figure out what you want to say, write it down, type it up, put it in a letter and send it in. In two months. Never mind the fact that you will not get your draft copy for three weeks. Well no; better mind it after all. You have one month to study and think. If your work schedule is still on time, the children are healty, the IRS does not audit you, your house is not under termite attacks, and all the myriad other distractions are held at bay, why, you have plenty of time. (Of course, if you are a student, $75 might be a big deal. Not to worry. Reviews come up no more than once a year, and you only have to go through three or four. By then you may have graduated anyway. Besides, what do students know about languages?) Well. Perhaps I have overstated things, but what effect does your public review comment have? Unless you found an editorial mistake, the reply will most likely be something like this: The Committee has reviewed your suggestion and voted on it. The result was 29 to 1 against. Or: The description in paragraph 4, subsection 13, section 517, chapter 33, volume 95 of the draft Standard is perfectly clear to everyone on the Committee. So there! (Well, maybe not. Actually, some people send some really stupid suggestions; the reply editor is required to be polite even then.) There is one thing you can do. You can get `observer' status. For some fee (I know not how much: I read a friend's copies of everything), you can get everything that is mailed to each committee member be mailed to you as well. But that is an amazing amount of material. Keeping up with it all is *hard*. Though you get drafts early, the amount of additional paper to read is daunting. You may still have trouble getting comments in on time. Of course, if you think a bit, you will see that the committee members have to do all this work too, and more besides. And then maybe you will appreciate their effort more. (Gosh, I love twist endings!) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (07/01/89)
In article <18308@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > [stuff about how hard it was to contribute to X3J11] All I can say about that is, I didn't find it hard to hear about the standardization effort from the start, obtain drafts from the Redactor, and contribute something to the effort even before my organization decided to officially sponsor my participation. Of course it took time and a modest amount of other resources ($175 to $200 annual fee, plus travel expenses) to participate fully, so if one really didn't care enough about C standardization to make this investment worthwhile then I suppose one would not have been able to exert as much influence as would otherwise be the case. That seems fair to me. There were several individuals who paid their own way (and if I keep forgetting to submit my travel voucher, I'll also be in that category). I skipped the Paris meeting; there weren't very many held at non-USA locations. >Well. Perhaps I have overstated things, but what effect does your >public review comment have? Unless you found an editorial mistake, >the reply will most likely be something like this: > The Committee has reviewed your suggestion and voted on > it. The result was 29 to 1 against. >Or: > The description in paragraph 4, subsection 13, section 517, > chapter 33, volume 95 of the draft Standard is perfectly clear > to everyone on the Committee. So there! >(Well, maybe not. Actually, some people send some really stupid >suggestions; the reply editor is required to be polite even then.) That really isn't a fair statement of how X3J11 responded to public comments. Virtually every issue was discussed in detail by several Committee members, and in a large number of instances the issue was brought before the full Committee for discussion. Every official response document was carefully reviewed by several Committee members to ensure maximum accuracy and completeness. No issue was brushed aside as unimportant. However, proposals for significant changes to the draft Standard needed to offer sufficient justification before the Committee would be persuaded to adopt them. In many cases there simply were not sufficient reasons given to justify making the change, or else specific counterarguments were found during the discussion. Of 2388 issues addressed during the public review process (including many that were submitted informally during that period), the Committee responses can be categorized as follows. (The actual responses, especially in cases where proposals were not accepted, were considerably more detailed than these summaries.) 905 (38%) BASICALLY ACCEPTED: 169 This was accepted as an editorial change to the Standard. 160 Changes have been made along the lines you suggested. 106 This was accepted as an editorial change to the Rationale. 81 This issue can be resolved by a careful reading of the Standard. 77 The request is reflected in the current draft. 64 This was accepted as an editorial change. 60 This editorial change has been made. 46 This proposal was accepted. 43 The Committee chose a different approach to deal with this issue. 38 The Committee has voted for this idea. 34 The Committee has made significant changes in this area. 13 This issue can be resolved by a careful reading of the Rationale. 7 The Standard provides another way to do this. 7 Extensions are allowed in this regard, but they are not required. 1163 (49%) BASICALLY REJECTED: 217 No change to the existing wording was considered necessary. 195 The Committee discussed this proposal but decided against it. 151 The Committee has voted against this idea. 104 The Committee believes this is clear enough as is. 70 This proposed editorial change was discussed but not accepted. 54 This was considered to be an invention of limited utility. 40 The Standard reflects the result of previous discussion of this issue. 39 This is too radical a change to adopt at this stage. 37 Quality of implementation is beyond the scope of the Standard. 33 The Committee has reaffirmed this decision on more than one occasion. 27 The Standard reflects widespread existing practice in this regard. 25 This concerns matters beyond the scope of X3J11. 23 This does not appear to be based on prior art. 21 This proposal would invalidate too much existing source code. 16 This proposal conflicts with too much prior art. 15 The Standard must accommodate a variety of environments. 14 The Standard must accommodate a variety of architectures. 13 In some cases, this proposal would be difficult to implement. 10 It was decided to allow implementors freedom in this regard. 8 This proposal contains insurmountable technical errors. 6 The Standard reflects the base document in this regard. 6 The Standard is not intended to double as a tutorial. 6 Such a constraint on implementations was deemed undesirable. 5 The Committee has not adopted your proposal. 4 The Standard must accommodate a variety of preprocessing methods. 4 Adding too many facilities would unduly enlarge the language. 3 This would run counter to the historical ``spirit of C''. 2 This would impair development of portable source code. 2 This proposal would preclude code optimization. 2 This proposal would conflict with other portions of the Standard. 2 The present wording is required for accuracy and completeness. 2 The Standard supports a one-pass compilation model. 2 The Standard remedies a deficiency in the base document. 2 The Standard must accommodate anticipated future evolution. 2 The Standard must accommodate a variety of character sets. 1 This could not be efficiently implemented on many architectures. 320 (13%) OTHERS: 153 This was considered a request for information, not an issue. 78 This is a misinterpretation of correct wording in the document. 44 This was considered a comment rather than an issue. 19 A specific proposal is needed before action can be taken. 17 This was not considered an issue requiring action. 5 This is an issue for the implementor, not the Standard. 2 Existing implementations may indeed not meet Standard criteria. 2 unknown DISCLAIMER: Although I believe the preceding to be accurate, it is not to be construed as an official X3J11 statement.
nevin1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber) (07/06/89)
In article <10474@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: |Of course it took |time and a modest amount of other resources ($175 to $200 annual fee, |plus travel expenses) to participate fully, so if one really didn't |care enough about C standardization to make this investment worthwhile |then I suppose one would not have been able to exert as much influence |as would otherwise be the case. How much is your time worth? Did you work on ANSI C 1/4 time, 1/2 time, or just "spare" time. When it all gets figured in, I doubt that it is just a "modest" amount of resources. |That seems fair to me. Fair, yes. Cheap?? I think not. -- NEVIN ":-)" LIBER AT&T Bell Laboratories nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (312) 979-4751
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (07/11/89)
In article <10474@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: | In article <18308@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: | > [stuff about how hard it was to contribute to X3J11] | | All I can say about that is, I didn't find it hard to hear about the | standardization effort from the start, obtain drafts from the Redactor, | and contribute something to the effort even before my organization | decided to officially sponsor my participation. Of course it took | time and a modest amount of other resources ($175 to $200 annual fee, | plus travel expenses) to participate fully, so if one really didn't | care enough about C standardization to make this investment worthwhile | then I suppose one would not have been able to exert as much influence | as would otherwise be the case. That seems fair to me. I think you are understating that cost. I was a member from the first meeting in Washington forward for just over two years. The cost for regular and committee meetings was about 6 weeks time the first year, and 9 the second. That's why I wasn't a member the third year. None of this reflects the hours put in reading stuff, preparing proposals, etc. I'm not saying that the cost is out of line for a large company, but the way you say it makes it sound like pin money. I would have paid my own transportation and living if someone could have paid my $alary. BTW: it seems that several people who left the committee about that time never showed up on the list of members later. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Rahul Dhesi) (07/11/89)
In article <1147@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <10474@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >| ...so if one really didn't >| care enough about C standardization to make this investment worthwhile... >The cost for >regular and committee meetings was about 6 weeks time the first year, >and 9 the second. It gets worse if you care not only about C standardization, but also Ada standardization, Pascal standardization, Fortran standardization, etc. (Not to mention POSIX standardization, SVID standardization, RS-232 standardization, local housing code standardization, and so on.) I haven't even mentioned standardized high-resolution television, standardized digital audio tape, and standardized headlight switches on rented automobiles. Our lives are *full* of standards that affect us. Were any individual do all that he seems to be expected to do to influence standards he "cares" about, he would likely have no time for anything else. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> UUCP: ...!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi