| Chuck Stevens 2006-05-24, 9:55 pm |
|
"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:LTPcg.19387$aA3.2378@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
> news:e504kq$31bq$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> <much snippage>
>
> Chuck,
> If my memory serves me correctly, you became invovled with J4 (or X3J4)
> *after* the merger with CCC (CODASYL COBOL Committee). If so, then this
> may be an unfair question.
Whether the question is fair or not, my first direct involvement with J4 was
at Meeting #228 in December 2000 at Carmel, CA.
> It seems to me that (as I see the current situation - and your comment
> above), that you see the "value" in the Standard ('02 or later) being that
> of what the JOD (Journal of Development) *used* to be. In fact, some
> features WERE implemented by vendors based on the JOD - and some got
> "changed" by the time they got into the '85 ANSI or '02 ISO Standard. On
> the other hand, some features, did become "medium common" extensions
> (never in the Standard) based on JOD inclussion.
Though our linguistic training is in different language families, it appears
necessary to remind you that I chose my words carefully, and presuming you
chose your words equally carefully, I think you've misquoted (or
mis-paraphrased) me.
There is a sketch in "Beyond the Fringe" that applies here. It's a
hypothetical exchange between an unnamed member of the cast and Bertrand
Russell (I forget the title of the sketch). Here's a paraphrase from
memory:
(UMC): "Are there any apples in that basket?"
(BR): "No", replied Mr. Russell.
(UMC): "Are there some apples in that basket?"
(BR): "No", replied Mr. Russell, who smiled seraphically (as was his
wont).
(UMC): That left me in a logical cleft stick from which there was but
one escape:
"Are there apples in that basket?"
(BR): "YES!" replied Mr. Russell, and from that day forward we were the
very best of friends.
I stated that I see value in the standard, and in the process of its
development, as a guide to implementor design and development. That is a
far cry from stating, or intending to state, that I see 'the "value" ' being
in that arena. If you're going to argue, or ask for my explanations as to
what I meant by what I actually stated, it is generally considered Bad Form
to request my elaboration of an argument I did not make!
> Do you see the PRIMARY role of the current Standard and development of the
> next Standard as such - or if not, how do you distinguish their roles?
Nor did I say "primary". The roleS that the standard and the draft will,
or might, play in the lives of developers and implementors is out of my
control. As it stands right now, whether anyone *ever* comes up with an
implementation conforming absolutely in every respect to either one, I think
the standard has value as a guide, as an ideal, as a goal. Whether anyone
attains that goal is not relevant to that point.
At this point, if somebody provides a fully-conforming implementation of
2002 standard COBOL, or of the 2008 draft once it's complete, I think it
would be of benefit to COBOL at large, and I think that would be a separate
issue from the value of the standard itself. I think the value of the
standard would be *enhanced* if an implementor provided a conforming
implementation -- but then I think the value of the standard is *enhanced*
every time somebody decides, for example, to implement the time/date
intrinsic functions from the draft , or free-form reference format or the
exception-handling routines from the 2002 standard, as extensions to their
existing offerings. And I think the standard has value as a simple
guideline along the lines of "IF you are going to do something like <x>,
here's a recommended way of doing it, because if you do it this way, others
are likely to follow".
I think the standard and the process both have value in all of these areas,
taken individually and in combination, and am not inclined to dismiss any of
them or assign each area a ranking. Value is sufficient unto itself, in my
view.
-Chuck Stevens
|