3 ms·

I think it’s flagged (although I don’t have an opinion on whether it should be) because it’s not clear at all whether it’s actually a reasonable thing to expect

I think it’s flagged (although I don’t have an opinion on whether it should be) because it’s not clear at all whether it’s actually a reasonable thing to expect: plenty of industries are built on programming languages that don’t have formal specifications, much less natural language ones. To argue by example: Ruby has an ISO standard, but that standard is for a very old version of the language. Python doesn’t have an independent standard at all; it’s like Rust in that the reference implementation is itself the standard. But nobody is champing at the bit to replace their Ruby or Python stack for standards reasons.

hitekker 1y ago
Rust's leadership wanted a formal specification. They thought it's reasonable. Hence, why they invested in a team to build a spec https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-vision/ https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio... One of the founding members wrote a blog post & RFC which gives some good reasons why a spec is needed https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-standard https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-standard https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3355-rust-spec.html https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3355-rust-spec.html
logicchains 1y ago
Nobody is champing at the bit to rewrite the OS stack in Ruby or Python.
- woodruffw 1y ago
  Who said they are? The GP's language is "foundation of an entire industry"; I would argue that you and I could both find plenty of industries that directly attribute their foundations to those languages.
  - dingi 1y ago
    In what way Ruby and Python are foundations for entire industries? As I see, these two are just surface level languages which mostly use C/C++ under the hood.
    - woodruffw 1y ago
      Rails and Django alone account for a disproportionate number of current software service companies. That’s just what immediately comes to mind. “It’s X under the hood” is true, but only in the same sense that “computer programs are made of coffee” is true. You can’t easily replace a Ruby stack with a Python one just because both have a reference C implementation; that’s the entire point of having high level languages with rich abstractions.

hitekker 1y ago

Rust's leadership wanted a formal specification. They thought it's reasonable. Hence, why they invested in a team to build a spec https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-vision/ https://blog.rust-lang.org/inside-rust/2023/11/15/spec-visio... One of the founding members wrote a blog post & RFC which gives some good reasons why a spec is needed https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-standard https://blog.m-ou.se/rust-standard https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3355-rust-spec.html https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3355-rust-spec.html

logicchains 1y ago

Nobody is champing at the bit to rewrite the OS stack in Ruby or Python.

woodruffw 1y ago
Who said they are? The GP's language is "foundation of an entire industry"; I would argue that you and I could both find plenty of industries that directly attribute their foundations to those languages.
- dingi 1y ago
  In what way Ruby and Python are foundations for entire industries? As I see, these two are just surface level languages which mostly use C/C++ under the hood.
  - woodruffw 1y ago
    Rails and Django alone account for a disproportionate number of current software service companies. That’s just what immediately comes to mind. “It’s X under the hood” is true, but only in the same sense that “computer programs are made of coffee” is true. You can’t easily replace a Ruby stack with a Python one just because both have a reference C implementation; that’s the entire point of having high level languages with rich abstractions.