5 ms·

Some part of me would love to see a new group - one with a more pragmatic approach - fix the POSIX spec in a way similar to what happened with HTML5 and WHATWG.

Some part of me would love to see a new group - one with a more pragmatic approach - fix the POSIX spec in a way similar to what happened with HTML5 and WHATWG. The other part of me wonders if it's even worth the trouble - this would involve taking the time of knowledgeable people away from projects worthy of that time to do this. What value would we get out if it? Would it be worth the cost?

harrytuttle 13y ago
So you want many broken implementations with quirks of their own? (HTML5 + WHATWG's output). There needs to be a single dictator with a single standard. The problem so far is that the dictator and standard need to be hit with the clue stick man times before rather than pushing corporate features and agendas. POSIX, HTML5, Java are all design-by-committee crapfests. Golang is about right on this. Once core standard and reference implementation which is opinionated and built by people who know their shit.
- planckscnst 13y ago
  As I understood it, HTML5 was specifically about getting away from the design-by-committee mode that was causing problems in XHTML. It was a group of people that got together and said, "Okay, what are peole actually doing right now, that is what needs to be documented in the standard." They did not want a perscriptive standard, but rather, a descriptive one. Am I wrong about this?
  - masklinn 13y ago
    You're not. And it's not like they wanted a descriptive standard, it's that they knew a prescriptive one would not fly and would just be completely ignored due to the conflicting interests of the half-dozen actors. A standard everybody ignores is utterly pointless.
- coolsunglasses 13y ago
  Golang's stdlib is not the best example to use to back up your argument. It's a type-casted ugly hackfest that serves only to demonstrate the mis-design of the language itself.
  - bsg75 13y ago
    Examples?
lmm 13y ago
Unlike modern web browsers, unix variants are a very inequal market. Linux can and does introduce new APIs that programs then depend on, without consulting anyone else or trying to standardize them, rather like IE in the bad old days (see recent cgroups/systemd). Until another unixlike achieves firefox-like success we're unlikely to see any change - it's not in linux's interest to cooperate, and linux doesn't even bother staying source-compatible with previous versions of itself, never mind other systems.
- jfb 13y ago
  There is another family of Unixlikes that has significant market share, and isn't chasing Linux's API changes.
  - lmm 13y ago
    One that people use a POSIXy API to program for?
    - jfb 13y ago
      ~ » uname Darwin ~ » man shm_open SHM_OPEN(2) BSD System Calls Manual
      - lmm 13y ago
        There's another platform with a larger marketshare that has a POSIX API available too. The question is whether it's the API that developers for that platform actually use.
        justincormack 13y ago
        It doesn't really have much of a POSIX API though. It could but it is very incomplete, deliberately, having just enough to bootstrap the other environment...
swatkat 13y ago
http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/ :)

harrytuttle 13y ago

So you want many broken implementations with quirks of their own? (HTML5 + WHATWG's output). There needs to be a single dictator with a single standard. The problem so far is that the dictator and standard need to be hit with the clue stick man times before rather than pushing corporate features and agendas. POSIX, HTML5, Java are all design-by-committee crapfests. Golang is about right on this. Once core standard and reference implementation which is opinionated and built by people who know their shit.

planckscnst 13y ago
As I understood it, HTML5 was specifically about getting away from the design-by-committee mode that was causing problems in XHTML. It was a group of people that got together and said, "Okay, what are peole actually doing right now, that is what needs to be documented in the standard." They did not want a perscriptive standard, but rather, a descriptive one. Am I wrong about this?
- masklinn 13y ago
  You're not. And it's not like they wanted a descriptive standard, it's that they knew a prescriptive one would not fly and would just be completely ignored due to the conflicting interests of the half-dozen actors. A standard everybody ignores is utterly pointless.
coolsunglasses 13y ago
Golang's stdlib is not the best example to use to back up your argument. It's a type-casted ugly hackfest that serves only to demonstrate the mis-design of the language itself.
- bsg75 13y ago
  Examples?

lmm 13y ago

Unlike modern web browsers, unix variants are a very inequal market. Linux can and does introduce new APIs that programs then depend on, without consulting anyone else or trying to standardize them, rather like IE in the bad old days (see recent cgroups/systemd). Until another unixlike achieves firefox-like success we're unlikely to see any change - it's not in linux's interest to cooperate, and linux doesn't even bother staying source-compatible with previous versions of itself, never mind other systems.

jfb 13y ago
There is another family of Unixlikes that has significant market share, and isn't chasing Linux's API changes.
- lmm 13y ago
  One that people use a POSIXy API to program for?
  - jfb 13y ago
    ~ » uname Darwin ~ » man shm_open SHM_OPEN(2) BSD System Calls Manual
    - lmm 13y ago
      There's another platform with a larger marketshare that has a POSIX API available too. The question is whether it's the API that developers for that platform actually use.
      - justincormack 13y ago
        It doesn't really have much of a POSIX API though. It could but it is very incomplete, deliberately, having just enough to bootstrap the other environment...

swatkat 13y ago

http://xkcd.com/927/ http://xkcd.com/927/ :)