I can't think of any either. I'm not sure about whether closed or open would be better, but as long as MM made a commitment to the language as well as selling an implementation, I don't think closed would be a bad thing. Might even allow for a bit faster update cycle (less deliberation), which I wouldn't complain about, though the giving the community a recognized voice would certainly be nice as well. It's been proven to work both ways.
Cheers, barneyb > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta > Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [CFCDev] OT: BD / CF > > While all that is true. Imagine how things would be without a > specification. I see no downside to having a CFML language > specification. Does anyone? > > -Matt > > > On Mar 16, 2004, at 6:19 PM, Sean A Corfield wrote: > > > On Mar 16, 2004, at 2:51 PM, Matt Liotta wrote: > >> There is a slippery slope that all the vendors are standing on top > >> of. A language specification is the only answer. > > > > I can point to any number of languages with ANSI and ISO standards > > that have many differing implementations and portability problems. > > That's not to say "standards are bad" - I wouldn't have > spent nearly a > > decade working on the ISO and ANSI C++ committees if I'd > believed that > > (and I also expended effort on both C's standardization and various > > attempts to standardize Java - Sun wouldn't give the language up to > > the standards community). > > > > The Java community probably has the least portability and > > compatibility problems of any language that has many > implementations > > (EJBs excepted, perhaps). I believe that is at least partly > due to the > > tight control Sun has maintained over the language. I don't > entirely > > agree with that policy (hence I worked with IST/5/-/53 and other > > organizations to try to persuade Sun to let us standardize > Java back > > in the late 90's), but it has proved remarkably effective... > > > > Regards, > > Sean > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the > > message of the email. > > > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). > > > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > > www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email > to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' > in the message of the email. > > CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported > by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). > > An archive of the CFCDev list is available at > www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
