Tony Lowe <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Actually, they publish their standard in a hardcover edition 8).
> Simply because the standard is owned by a company does not make it any less
> of a standard.
Well, now you are defining your own meaning of the word "standard".
Here in the Ada community, it does _not_ mean "something defined by a
You are, of course, free to use any word to mean anything you want.
But if you wish to be understood, you need to stick to the standard
meanings of the community :).
> Given the fact that many millions of dollars have been invested by
> quite large companies to support the standard, both in their
> products and in free initiatives, I would say the "change at a CEO's
> whim" is not terribly likely, and if it did it would be to plug a
> security leak. I would be the first to say that I would feel more
> comfortable having it be a public standard, but politically it is
> possibly not really the best choice. The fear that another large
> software firm would 'corrupt' the workings is not beyond
> imagination, considering the $25 mil settlement that already
> happened with a private standard! I don't see any big Microsoft
> initiatives (.EMBEDDED?) making comparisons with Ada technology as a
> chief rival.
> Simply put, the Java language has plenty of absurd things to contend
> with but the standard is hardly one that has stopped multi-billion dollar
> companies from investing largely in the technology. I do appreciate the
> feedback, but I have noticed that it is more likely to come on the
> political side of posturing rather than the technical side of building
> better software. 8).
I was only objecting to your use of the word "standard", not arguing
the technical points.
However, many people (me included) claim that true standard-compliant
software is inherently better, simply because is it more reusable, and
more easily understood. That is what allowed the World Wide Web; the
existence of public standards.
It is true that when a proprietary language becomes popular enough, it
can be viewed as a "de facto standard". Then using it has some of the
advantages of a true standard, but not all.