That is not exactly true. Sun has control over the Java specification, but through JCP, others can influence formally the Java specification. In the case of C#, it is now an ECMA standard, so Microsoft is not in control of C#; ECMA is. I believe C++ is an ISO standard, so that no vendor can control C++ either.
Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.montarasoftware.com/ 888-408-0900 x901 > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:07 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is CFMX > J2EE implemented?)) > > And to this I have say, so what? MM has the say on what's part of CF and > what's not. Sun has a say on what's part of Java and what's not. MS has a > say on what's part of their programming languages and what's not. When a > third party wants to use these languages, they have a standard to fit to; > the language. > I can live with that, especially with the ability that I have to add > whatever I want to the CF language using standard (love that word) hooks > in > the system. > > I understand companies who have a fear of Macromedia and Microsoft going > away so they want the languages to be standardized. But let me ask > something > really blunt. What standard do you mean? The MS standard? The Java > standard? > The perl standard? The SQL standard (with all of its variants)? > > > My $.02... > > > > I don't think anyone will argue with you. > > > > The discussion here exactly follows the discussion that has taken place > in > the Java camp for a long time. Lack of standardization is an inhibitor to > adoption. Java managed to get around this somewhat because it was > basically > the first guy on the block, and because it is now slowly opening up to > outside "influences." > > > > No one wants to buy into a technology set that may go belly up with the > next round of dot bomb bankruptcies, and having a language that is part of > a > standards process help to allay those fears. > > > > How many times have we seen threads where the topic is "help me justify > CF > over [jsp/asp/java]." Part of that is marketing, but part of that is > wanting to stay with standards, or (in the absence of good standards) the > big boys. > > > > Just because a tag starts with CF doesn't mean it's part of the CFML > language. Right now, MM is the only group that determines that. > > > > Kevin > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:26 PM > > To: CF-Talk > > Subject: Re: CFML standardization (was RE: BlueDragon (was RE: How is > > CFMX J2EE implemented?)) > > > > > > Let me see if I follow your second argument here. I create a work. > Someone > > else copies the work. Because that someone else copied my work, I should > > give up control of it to a third person? The entire system of > intellectual > > copywrite that exists at the moment would cause this to fail and > rightfully > > so. If the creator of a work can lose ownership because someone else > makes > > use of it, then why bother creating it in the first place. Just wait for > > someone else to create something and steal it from them. > > I have nothing against Blue Dragon, CF_Anywhere and every other CF > parser > > that exists. I think it's a great thing that they feel CF is a strong > enough > > language that they would even want to write a parser for it. But I do > have > > to recognize that the language is owned by MM and they have every right > to > > say what's part or not part of it. The fact that MM says what's in the > > language but is willing to listen to our suggestions gives as much of a > > level playing field as having the language controlled by someone else. > > > > > I should probably stay out of this--- oh, what the hell. > > > > > > I think that a lot of excellent points have been made in this thread. > > > > > > Here are my thoughts: > > > > > > 1) One entity should own and control the CFML language! > > > > > > 2) Any number of entities can/should offer competitive implementations > > > of the language! > > > > > > 1 is currently MM -- it would be counterproductive for others to > offer > > > dialects of the language that are specific to an implementation > > > > > > 2 is currently MM & BD -- if BD (or others) are successful, then > > > ownership/control of the CFML language should pass to a 3rd-party > > > standards group -- then implementers could compete on a level playing > > > field. > > > > > > I would personally prefer that BD force MM to relinquish control of > the > > > language by providing better implementations/lower costs; rather than > > > alternative CFLM commands and functions. > > > > > > Dick > > > > > > BTW, Vince, I'd like typing of variables and Nulls in CFML :) > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists&body=lists/cf_talk FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
