Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #6534 > unrolled thread

Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-10 12:05 +0200
    Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2011-06-10 03:35 -0700
      Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-10 13:28 +0200
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-06-10 05:07 -0700
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-10 14:32 +0200
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Michael Doubez <michael.doubez@free.fr> - 2011-06-10 07:24 -0700
              Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-10 16:50 +0200
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. "Balog Pal" <pasa@lib.hu> - 2011-06-10 14:21 +0200
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-10 14:34 +0200
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-11 23:56 +0200
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-11 08:20 +1200
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-06-10 20:33 -0700
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-11 12:59 +0200
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-11 23:51 +0200
              Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-06-11 15:32 -0700
                Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-12 10:28 +0200
                  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Keith H Duggar <duggar@alum.mit.edu> - 2011-06-12 08:02 -0700
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-11 12:53 +0200
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-11 23:30 +1200
              Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-11 13:55 +0200
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-11 23:44 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#6534 — Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.

(forward inline for later googling...)

"reject:[off-topic,nothing new,missing context] #3661
(comp.lang.c++.moderated)"

-------- Original Message --------
Message-ID: <4DF08CFE.556B06B6@web.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated
From: Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 
Reply-To: terekhov@web.de
Subject: Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting,
Ltd. 
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: <RxWGp.17946$GN5.8984@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com>
<2011060517051635155-pete@versatilecodingcom>
<87d3iqzveq.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
<1f90f3c2-9c78-4152-8a0f-8b67ecd54801@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
<isksp0$r28$1@dont-email.me>
<e9c9b4df-ed9c-47fc-9887-3611f8be9271@j25g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>
<959iriFrbfU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Original-Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 11:06:06 +0200
X-Submission-Address: lang-c++-submit@vandevoorde.com

{ your post doesn't add any new technical C++ content nor does it seem
to address points presented in the quoted text (did you snip away
too much?) if you would like to discuss the standardization process,
consider adding some words to that effect and posting in comp.std.c++.
thanks. -mod }

Bo Persson wrote:
[...]
> The people doing the work have to pay as well, for being voting
> members and allowed to do the work. I'm sure they are happy if as many
> as possible get the results of their work, but for it to be an
> official international standard we need the international standards
> organization as well. And that has a cost.

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html

"Ecma Standards and Technical Reports are made available as download to
all interested persons or organizations, free of charge in PDF format
(to obtain a PDF reader, go to e.g. the Adobe webpage or to a free
software PDF reader). All Ecma Standards and Technical Reports are
covered by the Ecma copyright disclaimer."

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf

""DISCLAIMER

This document and possible translations of it may be copied and
furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise
explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied,
published, and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of
any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are
included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document
itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the
copyright notice or references to Ecma International, except as needed
for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by
Ecma International (in which case the rules applied to copyrights must
be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than
English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by Ecma International or its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS
IS" basis and ECMA INTERNATIONAL DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."

regards,
alexander.


-- 
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#6542

On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote or
actually copy-pasted:

> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf

I didn't get what was your point? A product is free for users but that
does not make it free for its makers. I have participated in project
where country ordered and paid millions for public domain open source
code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6547

Öö Tiib wrote:
> 
> On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote or
> actually copy-pasted:
> 
> > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
> 
> I didn't get what was your point? . . .

The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6549

On 10 juin, 13:28, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote or
> > actually copy-pasted:
>
> > >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> > >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
>
> > I didn't get what was your point? . . .
>
> The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.

ECMA is not governmental and driven by companies. I am not sure it
would best serve the interest of all. With this organization, C++/CLI
would already be standard C++.

--
Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6553

Michael Doubez wrote:
> 
> On 10 juin, 13:28, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
> > Öö Tiib wrote:
> >
> > > On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote or
> > > actually copy-pasted:
> >
> > > >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> > > >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
> >
> > > I didn't get what was your point? . . .
> >
> > The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
> 
> ECMA is not governmental 

Right, that is the key point.

>                          and driven by companies. I am not sure it

Not for profit members such as open source orgs, research institutes,
and government orgs do not pay ECMA membership fees and can vote on
technical committee level, but not on general assembly meetings. See:

http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/NFP.htm

"British Library ... Mozilla Foundation ... Stanford University ... The
Library of Congress ... US Department of Defense"

> would best serve the interest of all. With this organization, C++/CLI
> would already be standard C++.

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6566

On 10 juin, 14:32, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
> Michael Doubez wrote:
>
> > On 10 juin, 13:28, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote:
> > > Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov <terek...@web.de> wrote or
> > > > actually copy-pasted:
>
> > > > >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> > > > >http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
>
> > > > I didn't get what was your point? . . .
>
> > > The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
>
> > ECMA is not governmental
>
> Right, that is the key point.

And it is a point again ECMA.

>
> >                          and driven by companies. I am not sure it
>
> Not for profit members such as open source orgs, research institutes,
> and government orgs do not pay ECMA membership fees and can vote on
> technical committee level, but not on general assembly meetings. See:
>
> http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/NFP.htm
>
> "British Library ... Mozilla Foundation ... Stanford University ... The
> Library of Congress ... US Department of Defense"

Still. People remember the ODF vs. OpenXml.

The only reproach that can be done to ISO is that they accepted two
competing standards. And ECMA was instrumental to that.

> > would best serve the interest of all. With this organization, C++/CLI
> > would already be standard C++.

Wouldn't it ?

--
Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6567

Michael Doubez wrote:
[...]
> Still. People remember the ODF vs. OpenXml.

Funny that you mention that... in embarrassment to Pete Becker,

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=43485
(ISO/IEC 26300:2006)

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51463
(ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008)

both Open Document Format and Open XML standards can be downloaded for
free from iso.org.

See also:

ISO/IEC 29500-1:2008/Amd.1:2010
ISO/IEC 29500-2:2008
ISO/IEC 29500-3:2008
ISO/IEC 29500-4:2008
ISO/IEC 29500-4:2008/Amd.1:2010

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6551

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de>

> The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.

Alex, I could not make out how you address Pete Becker's problem. He claimed 
that his costs using ECMA would be like $15000 vs. the ISO verson's $1200. 
It is a serious difference.

Do you think it's made up? If not, what is the supposed solution? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6554

Balog Pal wrote:
> 
> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de>
> 
> > The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
> 
> Alex, I could not make out how you address Pete Becker's problem. He claimed
> that his costs using ECMA would be like $15000 vs. the ISO verson's $1200.
> It is a serious difference.
> 
> Do you think it's made up? If not, what is the supposed solution?

<Forward Inline>

-------- Original Message --------
Message-ID: <4DF1E7F4.B1344A5@web.de>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:46:28 +0200
From: Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de>
Reply-To: terekhov@web.de
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject: Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting,
Ltd.
References:
<RxWGp.17946$GN5.8984@en-nntp-14.dc1.easynews.com><4DF09167.16F74C57@web.de>
<2011060911283666605-pete@versatilecodingcom>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Pete Becker wrote:
> 
> On 2011-06-09 05:49:35 -1000, Alexander Terekhov said:
> 
> > John G Harris wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Or you could put the language under the control of a large company
> >> willing to pay the costs. But what influence do you have over the next
> >> issue of Java and C#?
> >
> > Java aside, C# is Standard ECMA-334:
> >
> > http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm
> >
> > and it is available free of charge.
> 
> Last time I looked, it would have cost me $15,000 per year to
> participate in ECMA. For ISO, through INCITS, the fee is $1200. It's
> very generous of you to suggest that I pay over ten times as much as I

You do know that not for profit orgs such as open source orgs, research
institutes, and government orgs don't pay ECMA membership fees (and
still can vote on technical committee level, but not on general assembly
meetings), right? 

"British Library ... Mozilla Foundation ... Stanford University ... The
Library of Congress ... US Department of Defense"

http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/NFP.htm

"... next category is the small private company. This has a maximum of 5
employees and annual revenues of $5 million per year.  Usually startups
or very small private companies. The membership fee is 3,500 swiss
francs per year.  The next one is a better known term, the SME (small
medium enterprise).  The only qualification is that it must have a
turnover (annual revenues) of $75 million. SMEs pay 17,500 swiss francs
per year in dues.  There's no initiation fee. If you apply in a certain
six month period, invoicing starts at the beginning of the next
"semester."  Semesters begin on January 1 and July 1.  But you get
voting rights on a technical level as soon as you join, even though you
haven't paid yet.  Ordinary members, the highest level pays 70,000
francs.  Associate Members pay 35,000  francs per year.  If you want to
be in the management of the association — in other words be involved at
both a technical and the management level — getting the rights to decide
on budget, who is president, etc., then you must apply for ordinary
membership.  Theoretically, everyone can apply.  but if you were a small
private company, I guess you wouldn't do that because it is too
expensive.  If you want to have the rights to chair technical committees
and do not qualify for one of the first three categories, then you can
apply for an associate membership. "

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/page/interview-with-ecmas-secretarie-general/2259

> currently do so that you can get a free copy of the standard.

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6631

* Balog Pal:

> "Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de>
>
>> The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
>
> Alex, I could not make out how you address Pete Becker's problem. He
> claimed that his costs using ECMA would be like $15000 vs. the ISO
> verson's $1200. It is a serious difference.
>
> Do you think it's made up? If not, what is the supposed solution? 

It's actually $20,000 if you're beyond the small company threshold.
That's pretty steep, agreed.  But even that is dwarfed by
travel-related costs (involvement in actual editing decisions at ISO
require physical presence, so the largest travel budget wins).

On the other hand, the ISO model still loses financially when you
actually need a couple of standards.  Membership in national
standardization bodies typically gives you a cheap site license, but
you still have to buy one copy of each standard you're interested in.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6583

On 06/10/11 11:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov<terek...@web.de>  wrote or
>> actually copy-pasted:
>>
>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
>>
>> I didn't get what was your point? . . .
>
> The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.

All this moaning over a $20 odd download?

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6602

On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/10/11 11:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
>
> All this moaning over a $20 odd download?

Yes, it's a rising sense of entitlement. The self-centered ignorant
masses expect others to work for them for free. Furthermore, if by
some accident, an individual earns money, the masses expect to take
that money away from those individuals through taxation.

To phrase it a bit differently: stupid has a gravitational pull.

KHD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6616

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> 
> On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 06/10/11 11:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > > The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
> >
> > All this moaning over a $20 odd download?
> 
> Yes, it's a rising sense of entitlement. The self-centered ignorant
> masses expect others to work for them for free. Furthermore, if by
> some accident, an individual earns money, the masses expect to take
> that money away from those individuals through taxation.
> 
> To phrase it a bit differently: stupid has a gravitational pull.

C++ standardization does NOT rely on sales of the standard.

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6630

* Keith H. Duggar:

> Yes, it's a rising sense of entitlement. The self-centered ignorant
> masses expect others to work for them for free.

Doesn't the C++ standardization committee work for free for the
relevant national standardization bodies and ISO?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6633

On Jun 11, 5:51 pm, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Keith H. Duggar:
>
> > Yes, it's a rising sense of entitlement. The self-centered ignorant
> > masses expect others to work for them for free.
>
> Doesn't the C++ standardization committee work for free for the
> relevant national standardization bodies and ISO?

No. ISO provides infrastructure, maintenance, servicing, etc (in
other words they perform work) in exchange for membership fees,
publishing rights, technical contribution, etc from the members.
ISO currently receives roughly 35% of it's revenue from sales
and service. So clearly 1) sales are an important revenue stream
for them 2) they are providing economically valuable work.

In any case, what does volunteer work and/or mutual agreement have
to do with Alexander demanding the work of /others/ for free? ISO
has something Alexander wants. ISO asks for compensation in return
for giving him what he wants. If they mutually agree to the terms
then a transaction can happen. If they don't it doesn't. Economics
(and life for that matter) does not get any simpler than that.

KHD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6649

* Keith H. Duggar:

> On Jun 11, 5:51 pm, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
>> * Keith H. Duggar:
>>
>> > Yes, it's a rising sense of entitlement. The self-centered ignorant
>> > masses expect others to work for them for free.
>>
>> Doesn't the C++ standardization committee work for free for the
>> relevant national standardization bodies and ISO?
>
> No. ISO provides infrastructure, maintenance, servicing, etc (in
> other words they perform work) in exchange for membership fees,
> publishing rights, technical contribution, etc from the members.
> ISO currently receives roughly 35% of it's revenue from sales
> and service. So clearly 1) sales are an important revenue stream
> for them 2) they are providing economically valuable work.

This wasn't my question.  Clearly, ISO spends membership fees on
something.

> In any case, what does volunteer work and/or mutual agreement have
> to do with Alexander demanding the work of /others/ for free? ISO
> has something Alexander wants. ISO asks for compensation in return
> for giving him what he wants. If they mutually agree to the terms
> then a transaction can happen. If they don't it doesn't. Economics
> (and life for that matter) does not get any simpler than that.

ISO didn't compensate the authors and editors, either.  A bit like the
major record label who makes quite a few bucks by selling an album by
some minor band, and curiously, none of it actually ends up at the
band.  Perhaps this analogy explains why the situation is a bit
puzzling.  On the other hand, it is structurally similar to
complaining about the overpriced nature of Apple hardware---without
the brand and the price tag, there would be no Apple product at all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6656

On Jun 12, 4:28 am, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Keith H. Duggar:
>
> > On Jun 11, 5:51 pm, Florian Weimer <f...@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> >> * Keith H. Duggar:
>
> >> > Yes, it's a rising sense of entitlement. The self-centered ignorant
> >> > masses expect others to work for them for free.
>
> >> Doesn't the C++ standardization committee work for free for the
> >> relevant national standardization bodies and ISO?
>
> > No. ISO provides infrastructure, maintenance, servicing, etc (in
> > other words they perform work) in exchange for membership fees,
> > publishing rights, technical contribution, etc from the members.
> > ISO currently receives roughly 35% of it's revenue from sales
> > and service. So clearly 1) sales are an important revenue stream
> > for them 2) they are providing economically valuable work.
>
> This wasn't my question.  Clearly, ISO spends membership fees on
> something.
>
> > In any case, what does volunteer work and/or mutual agreement have
> > to do with Alexander demanding the work of /others/ for free? ISO
> > has something Alexander wants. ISO asks for compensation in return
> > for giving him what he wants. If they mutually agree to the terms
> > then a transaction can happen. If they don't it doesn't. Economics
> > (and life for that matter) does not get any simpler than that.
>
> ISO didn't compensate the authors and editors, either. A bit like the
> major record label who makes quite a few bucks by selling an album by
> some minor band, and curiously, none of it actually ends up at the band.

And curiously the minor band gains notoriety, exposure, etc and
if they are lucky becomes a not so minor band at which point they
will negotiate different terms. In other words, the band /did/
receive compensation in the form of marketing rather than money.

> Perhaps this analogy explains why the situation is a bit puzzling.

No, you just need to realize that cash is not the only medium of
value nor the only form of compensation.

For example, suppose we share an apartment with some rather dingy
walls. One day we've had enough and decide to paint the walls. You
have some experience painting so I offer to buy the paint, brushes,
drop-cloth, and other materials if you do the painting ie labor.

We agree and the transaction occurs, I buy the materials and you
apply the paint. In the end we have a nicely painted apartment that
we both enjoy. Are you saying you were not compensated??

KHD

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6614

Ian Collins wrote:
> 
> On 06/10/11 11:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>
> >> On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov<terek...@web.de>  wrote or
> >> actually copy-pasted:
> >>
> >>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> >>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
> >>
> >> I didn't get what was your point? . . .
> >
> > The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
> 
> All this moaning over a $20 odd download?

INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 price is $30, not $20.

ISO/IEC 14882:2003 is priced at "$381.00 Full MBR Price: $304.80"
(British BS ISO/IEC 14882:2003 Price: $622.00)

http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandards.aspx?SearchString=14882&SearchOption=0&PageNum=0&SearchTermsArray=null%7c14882%7cnull

ISO should sue INCITS (ANSI) for price dumping to begin with.

But why should I pay even 20 cents to american national body ONLY given
that other national bodies are also involved in the process?

Note also that a whole bunch of ISO standards are available for free to
download (just like *all* ECMA standards).

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6617

On 06/11/11 10:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Ian Collins wrote:
>>
>> On 06/10/11 11:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>>>
>>> Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov<terek...@web.de>   wrote or
>>>> actually copy-pasted:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
>>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get what was your point? . . .
>>>
>>> The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
>>
>> All this moaning over a $20 odd download?
>
> INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 price is $30, not $20.

$20, $30, who cares?  How much of you time would that buy?

> ISO should sue INCITS (ANSI) for price dumping to begin with.

They can sue the BSI while they are at it:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Standard-Incorporating-Technical-Corrigendum-No/dp/0470846747/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307791522&sr=1-1

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#6618

Ian Collins wrote:
> 
> On 06/11/11 10:53 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/10/11 11:28 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jun 10, 1:05 pm, Alexander Terekhov<terek...@web.de>   wrote or
> >>>> actually copy-pasted:
> >>>>
> >>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/index.html
> >>>>> http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/DISCLAIMER.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't get what was your point? . . .
> >>>
> >>> The point is that C++ should get rid of ISO and go to ECMA.
> >>
> >> All this moaning over a $20 odd download?
> >
> > INCITS/ISO/IEC 14882-2003 price is $30, not $20.
> 
> $20, $30, who cares?  How much of you time would that buy?

Not much of my time and so what?

Why should I pay even 20 cents to american national body ONLY given that
other national bodies are also involved in the process?

C++ standardization does NOT rely on sales of the standard.

> 
> > ISO should sue INCITS (ANSI) for price dumping to begin with.
> 
> They can sue the BSI while they are at it:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Standard-Incorporating-Technical-Corrigendum-No/dp/0470846747/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1307791522&sr=1-1

Does the latest draft of C++ 11 cost $36.91 as well?

http://coinmill.com/GBP_USD.html#GBP=22.66

Do you have a link?

regards,
alexander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web