4 ms·
I guess the GP didn't mean to point to ISO as an organization specifically, but overall standardization/specification efforts.
by summerlight 3y ago
I guess the GP didn't mean to point to ISO as an organization specifically, but overall standardization/specification efforts.
- jasonpeacock 3y agoStill, what is blocked by lack of standardization or specification? Many (all?) languages were successful before being fully specified, and many still are not (cough Python cough) yet that has not impacted their adoption, popularity, or effectiveness.
- steveklabnik 3y agoMany people misunderstand how software is written in regulated industries, and assume that a standard is necessary. In practice, this is not the case. Note that Ferrocene[1] had to produce a specification[2] in order to qualify the compiler. But there isn't a requirement that it must be a standard in any way, only that it describes how the Ferrocene compiler works. Nor that it be accepted by upstream. 1: https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/officially-qualified-ferrocene/ https://ferrous-systems.com/blog/officially-qualified-ferroc... 2: https://github.com/ferrocene/specification https://github.com/ferrocene/specification
- jasonpeacock 3y agoExactly. I've heard so much "you must follow MISRA!" but MISRA is not actually the requirement - it's a solution that satisfies the requirement, and there can be other way to satisfy the requirement of your industry's regulations.
- summerlight 3y agoI don't think GP described lack of the language specification as a blocker for future success? It's something nice-to-have when the ecosystem has enough resources, though I'm skeptical if this can be meaningfully kept up-to-date unless the core language team decides to actively maintain it. But this will definitely trade off the velocity to a certain degree.