David Barton wrote:
> Hans Aberg writes:
>
> I do not think that the Pascal standardizing model is being used
> anymore; instead one schedules a new revision, say every five years
> (this is used for C++). There is already an application put in for
> ISO/ANSI standardizing of Java, and I think Java is younger than
> Haskell. So I think the question should at least be investigated;
> perhaps it is the developed Standard Haskell that should be made
> ISO/ANSI.
I think you really have to stop and think very carefully about
what you would gain from an ISO/ANSI standard for Haskell,
and about what you would lose. I can see only two benefits:
prestige, and ability to use Haskell on certain rare government contracts.
But the latter is not an significant issue, since I don't think anyone
is considering using Haskell for those sort of government contracts
anyway. There are certainly some potentially significant drawbacks.
> Having been through the standardization wars many times, perhaps I
> should interject here. Virtually all of my experience has been within
> the IEEE process, although IEEE standards are often upgraded to ANSI
> and ISO standardization fairly quickly, with only an "up/down" vote
> (it is *not* automatic, however; Verilog was rejected).
>
> The IEEE *requires* restandardization every five years. If another
> ballot is not taken, than the standard is dropped.
ISO is the same. But standards don't get updated every five years.
Rather, each standard must be _reconsidered_ every five years. One of
the possible results is for the standard to be reapproved unchanged.
If the standards committee does decide that the standard should be
changed, then it will start a new project to produce a revised version
of the standard. This process itself takes years. So typically
language standards get updated less than once every ten years.
Fortran: 66, 77, 90.
COBOL: 74, 85
Ada: 83, 95.
C: 89, 9X. (Original standard in '89, currently undergoing revision;
revised standard, tentatively titled "C9X" due in 99, but
might not happen until 2000 or later.)
However, standards committees can publish normative amendements
in the intervening periods. For example, there have been some
normative amendments to the C standard since 89 (relating to
internationalization and numerical extensions).
> Standardization does not particularly guarantee stability. It does
> guarantee three things:
...
> 3) It also means (cynically) that the standardization organization
> makes money off of the standard's publication. If we were to
> standardize Haskell, the copyright of the document would have to be
> transferred to the standardization organization. This means that we
> could no longer distribute the Haskell Report free on the net, and
> with every download.
This is not _necessarily_ true. For example, the ISO Ada 95 standard
is freely available on the net.
However, convincing ISO of this would be a significant hurdle to
overcome.
In any case, I agree with Dave Barton that ISO standardization for
Haskell should not be considered until after the current effort
at defining "Standard Haskell" is complete.
--
Fergus Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
