kim@wacsvax.OZ (Kim Shearer) (03/22/90)
macrakis@marat.osf.fr (Stavros Macrakis) writes: >In article <668@sagpd1.UUCP>, jharkins@sagpd1.UUCP (Jim Harkins) writes: >> In article <8380@hubcap.clemson.edu> wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu (Bill >Wolfe) writes: >> > There is a great need for a single production programming language >> > which supports good software and code engineering practices. >> >> Yep, and there is great need for a single type of automobile. Any idiot can >> see that not only is it extremely dangerous for a person to go from driving >> a Hyndai Excel to a Ford Aerostar, as a nation we are wasting an awful >lot ... >Although Bill Wolfe is going a bit far, standardization certainly has a >lot going >for it. As a matter of fact, your automotive analogy is an interesting one. . . . Yes standardization does have some large advantages, but I read something some where that included a good caution about standards. The thing to avoid is over standardizing. That is, do not try to standardize immature technology. The result of this is that you end up locking youself into a bad standard. Anyway, just though it was worth repeating. People do seem to be pushing very hard for standards in every area possible.