home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop)
-
- In article <107019@uunet.UU.NET> hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM
- (HL Rogers) writes:
- > There is something to be said for any action which motivates the IEEE
- > committees to move a little faster. This type of action, however, will
- > ultimately cost the taxpayer when agencies who purchase D9 implementations
- > have to retool a year later because all the developed applications will
- > honor the final dot 2 draft.
-
- While we can wish for an ideal world where standards committees are
- always able quickly to reach a broad consensus based on well-tried
- existing practice, and can deliver a well-rounded document to an
- accepting and grateful public, we have to concern ourself with real
- life.
-
- Real life is populated by engineers with a variety of opinions,
- politicians, lawyers, accountants, and, if you're unlucky, people
- waving guns -- all forces which make it more difficult to achieve what
- may appear to you to be obvious goals. Like you, I, and Uncle Sam,
- they're just doing their jobs, and may consider different goals to be
- obvious. One just has to evaluate how well one is doing despite their
- malign influence.
-
- And I think that requiring conformance to a draft standard is a whole
- lot better than not requiring conformance to anything in particular.
- Sure, it will be annoying and painful to convert later when the real
- thing comes along. And it will cost real money. But it will cost a
- whole lot less money in total than -- say -- implementing using a
- proprietary environment now, and switching to an official POSIX.2 when
- it comes along. Yes, the up-front costs may be higher because a draft
- 9-conforming environment is likely to be more or less custom-built (or
- at least, suppliers are liable to try to stick you for the costs of a
- fully custom job, even if such costs are not justified). But the
- downstream costs, including the costs of any draft-to-final conversion,
- are likely to be way lower.
- --
- Dominic Dunlop
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 173
-
-