vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (03/23/91)
In article <8517@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >... These >are important considerations which the language designers do not seem >to be able to understand. >-- >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 >Phone: (317)494-6054 >hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP) It's easy to sit back and throw stones. Have you sent ONE concrete proposal to X3J3? Have you attended a meeting? Have you corresponded with ANY member on a topic relating to the language standard? Have you asked your employer / sponsor to foot the bill for you to join the committee? If you don't like something about the way the language is designed, propose an alternative, don't insult the people who worked hard to get what we have. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.202121.26272@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) writes: |> [...] |> It's easy to sit back and throw stones. Have you sent ONE concrete proposal |> to X3J3? [...] I don't know about Herman Rubin, but I have. |> [...] Have you attended a meeting? [...] Yes. |> [...] Have you corresponded with ANY member |> on a topic relating to the language standard? [...] Yes. |> [...] Have you asked your employer / |> sponsor to foot the bill for you to join the committee? No. Our representative on the committee sits just down the hall from me. Although we have differences, I was satisfied that he generally represented my interests with regard to Fortran. Even if I did not, no organization is allowed more than one full member on the committee. |> [...] |> If you don't like something about the way the language is designed, propose |> an alternative, don't insult the people who worked hard to get what we have. |> |> -- |> vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov |> ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder |> vsnyder@jato.uucp I have the third public review letters here in front of me. The letter from W. Van Snyder of the Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory was among the most critical of them. While I don't agree with all that he said (or left unsaid), I think the following quote reflects my own experience with the committee better than anything I could have said myself: "But, some comments appear not to have been considered, some appear to have been considered only in part, and the responses to some suggest that the examining subcommittee either didn't understand what I advocated, or chose not to (I think that's called _stonewalling_). Or, perhaps a shorter comment later on says the same thing more succinctly: "Please keep to the point of our proposals, instead of setting up easily-kicked-down straw men." I didn't send in a letter on the third public review since I was certain that it would be ignored or misinterpreted like my first two public review comments were. On the second public review, for example, I carefully listed several reasons that I opposed the introduction of POINTERs in the proposal. One of the responses I got back was: "You are correct that allocatable arrays are not needed because the pointer facility provides equivalent functionality. [...] " This, of course, was total garbage. I recommended _keeping_ the allocatable arrays and _dropping_ pointers - not the other way around! No native English speaker could possibly have interpreted my comments as a recommendation to drop allocatable arrays as redundant. So, before reprimanding people for complaining about the proposed standard, remember that our experience with the committee may have been as unacceptable as yours (or more so). Complaining in a public forum is the only option left to those of us whose comments were ignored or misrepresented by the committee in the past. J. Giles
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (03/23/91)
In article <1991Mar22.202121.26272@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) writes: > In article <8517@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: > >... These > >are important considerations which the language designers do not seem > >to be able to understand. > It's easy to sit back and throw stones. Have you sent ONE concrete proposal > to X3J3? Have you attended a meeting? Have you corresponded with ANY member > on a topic relating to the language standard? Have you asked your employer / > sponsor to foot the bill for you to join the committee? > > If you don't like something about the way the language is designed, propose > an alternative, don't insult the people who worked hard to get what we have. Have you read my postings to comp.lang.misc and comp.arch? The "gurus" reading the postings of others, as well as mine, take the attitude We know what is best, and we know what is basic, and we will provide all the tools which are good for you. There is one situation in which I did send in detailed suggestions to a meeting--this one was on the IEEE standards for floating point hardware, which I find decidedly poor. I sent in a 5 page list, and I stated that I had seen the request for such in an announcement of an open meeting. So what did I receive in response? An invitation to attend that same meeting! These committes make it very expensive to participate. The cost of even obtaining copies of proposals are quite high for the expense budget of a university department. These committees are not really soliciting suggestions from users, and they seem to be resisting it. Also, most of my suggestions go in the opposite direction even from the idea of a language standard. The point is that what we need is great flexibility, not restriction. If these committees want to know what users might want, let them announce the situations where users can see them. Requests for suggestions should appear in the journals of the AAAS, American Mathematical Society, American Statistical Association, etc. Summaries of suggestions made should also appear in those journals. Does it make sense for me to attend a meeting of such a committee instead of teaching and doing research? I do attend meetings, but I probably would have not much interest and little to contribute to most of it. The people with complaints and suggestions can make them quite plainly without spending lots of time at meetings. The real problem is that these standards committees feel that restrictive standards are needed, instead of great flexibility, and that efficiency may involve doing what is not even thought of at the time. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP)
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (03/26/91)
In my posting on this topic <1991Mar22.202121.26272@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> I wrote >|> If you don't like something about the way the language is designed, propose >|> an alternative, don't insult the people who worked hard to get what we have. ^^^^^^ In article <18835@lanl.gov> jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes: >I have the third public review letters here in front of me. The letter >from W. Van Snyder of the Nasa Jet Propulsion Laboratory was among the >most critical of them... [stuff deleted] > >So, before reprimanding people for complaining about the proposed >standard, remember that our experience with the committee may have ^^^^^^^^ I didn't complain about complaining about the proposed standard. I complained about asserting that the members of the standards committee were unable to understand general principles of language design. >been as unacceptable as yours (or more so). Complaining in a public >forum is the only option left to those of us whose comments were ^^^^^ I didn't publish my criticisms -- X3J3 did. >ignored or misrepresented by the committee in the past. > >J. Giles I've been critical of the standard, and critical of the treatment my comments received, but I've tried to stay away from character assasination. But I understand that in some environments, the tradition is first to try to demonstrate that somebody with whom you disagree can't possibly possess the mental and moral capacity to be right, or even sincere, and only then to disagree with what he said. -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) (03/26/91)
In article <8583@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >In article <1991Mar22.202121.26272@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) writes: >> In article <8517@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >> >... These >> >are important considerations which the language designers do not seem >> >to be able to understand. > >> It's easy to sit back and throw stones. Have you sent ONE concrete proposal >> to X3J3? Have you attended a meeting? Have you corresponded with ANY member >> on a topic relating to the language standard? Have you asked your employer / >> sponsor to foot the bill for you to join the committee? >> >> If you don't like something about the way the language is designed, propose >> an alternative, don't insult the people who worked hard to get what we have. >[stuff deleted] >The real problem is that these standards committees feel that restrictive >standards are needed, instead of great flexibility, and that efficiency may >involve doing what is not even thought of at the time. I agree with that. I just don't like character assasination. Complain about what they're doing, or how they're doing it, not about their mental and moral abilities. >-- >Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399 >Phone: (317)494-6054 >hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet) {purdue,pur-ee}!l.cc!hrubin(UUCP) -- vsnyder@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov ames!elroy!jato!vsnyder vsnyder@jato.uucp
jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) (03/27/91)
In article <1991Mar26.005251.8162@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, vsnyder@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Van Snyder) writes: |> [...] |> I didn't complain about complaining about the proposed standard. I'd like to complain about people who hold things up by complaining about people complaining - something should be done about it. Monty Python (Followed by a 16-ton weight being dropped on the man's head.) |> [...] I complained |> about asserting that the members of the standards committee were unable to |> understand general principles of language design. I didn't make such an assertion. And neither did Herman Rubin (who was legitimately pointing out considerations that standards committees _do_ tend to consistently overlook). However, now that you've brought it up: I'd _not_ claim that individual members of the committee were unable to understand general principles of language design, I _would_ claim that the committee as a whole is unable to practice such principles. Indeed, aside from ALGOL 60, I can't think of a single successful language which was committee designed (and ALGOL was _mostly_ done by a small subset of the committee). Why should this be so? Consider the answers to the first public review. Most consisted of "the committee considered your objection but decided to do X anyway." One of the committee members explained such non-answers (in this very newsgroup) as being the result of the fact that it was not possible to get a majority of the committee to agree to a technical rationale for individual features. It is my opinion that if there is not a single, easily described technical reason for a new feature, it should not be included at all! It appears that much of the new proposed standard consists of politically "convenient" compromises. That is: "you vote for my pet feature and I'll vote for yours." This is _not_ the way to design a language - or even new features for one. Committees should stick to what they do fairly well: standardizing common practice. |> [...] |> >been as unacceptable as yours (or more so). Complaining in a public |> >forum is the only option left to those of us whose comments were |> ^^^^^ |> I didn't publish my criticisms -- X3J3 did. Unfortunately, they didn't. They just sent them around to committee members and alternates. It is my opinion that they _should_ be published as widely as possible in order that the user community get the benefit of the thinking of other users. The responses should also be published (all of them) so the user community can see how the committee has dealt with each issue. |> [...] But I |> understand that in some environments, the tradition is first to try to |> demonstrate that somebody with whom you disagree can't possibly possess the |> mental and moral capacity to be right, or even sincere, and only then to |> disagree with what he said. There is another school of thought which expects honesty and competence from others until such time as it is clearly demonstrated not to exist. The committee's responses to the public reviews as well as other actions are a matter of public record. I have bent over backward in the assumption that their conduct is a result of political deadlock, lack of time and low budget within the committee as a whole and not a result of incompetence or dishonesty of individual members. But, the fact remains, the net effect is unsatisfactory and deserving of criticism. It is all the more important that such discussion be public since the vast majority of Fortran users are unaware of the issues or have only heard the pro-Fortran 90 story from the available books on the subject. J. Giles