digitalmars.D - standardization ISO
- bioinfornatics (2/2) Nov 19 2010 hi, why D language doesn't have a standardization (like iso)?
bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> writes:
hi, why D language doesn't have a standardization (like iso)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization
Nov 19 2010
AnonymousCowboy <AC nospam.net> writes:
== Quote from bioinfornatics (bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org)'s articlehi, why D language doesn't have a standardization (like iso)?Because it is beneath it.
Nov 19 2010
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:
On Friday 19 November 2010 15:29:15 bioinfornatics wrote:hi, why D language doesn't have a standardization (like iso)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_StandardizationIt takes years to reach that point. While the specification for D2 is now fairly stable, changes are still being made. You would have to have a very stable spec before trying to make it an international standard. And honestly, while it's nice to have an international standard, I'm not sure that it does all that much for you. Most languages - including many major ones - have no international standard. For instance, Java, python, and ruby don't have an ISO standard, and yet they're heavily used. Take a look here, and you'll see that very few languages have ISO standards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages Really. I'm not sure that it's all that useful to have them in many cases - especially when you have a central place where the language is defined. Many languages are designed by one person or group and have specific language versions, so you have a specification that tools can use or which other groups can implement. It's generally a sign of maturity for a language when it gets an ISO standard, but the lack of one doesn't necessarily say anything bad about a language. D may very well get an ISO standard some day, but it doesn't need one, and I don't think that it would really be benefited by one at this point. It's going to have to be a lot more mature before that's likely a good idea. - Jonathan M Davis
Nov 19 2010
JMRyan <nospam nospam.com> writes:
bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> wrote in news:ic718b$1kef$1 digitalmars.com:hi, why D language doesn't have a standardization (like iso)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardiza tionStandards organizations very often don't get involved until there are incompatibilities between competing implementations. There are several implementations of D, but they are all based on the Digital Mars front end. There just aren't the incompatibilities out there that require a standards organization's involvement. Incompatibilities aren't the only problems that standards organizations try to solve. But they nonetheless exist to solve problems. There are indeed problems with D (it still counts as a young language with kinks still to be worked out and with weak third party support), but those issues are not the kinds that fall under the purview of standards organizations. Note that open source development of a language helps prevent the need for standards organization involvement. This is at least partly why Perl, PHP, and Python don't have standards organization definition. Since D's front end is open source, it may never need a standards organization definition.
Nov 21 2010