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

Groups > comp.lang.c++.moderated > #1425

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

Show all headers | View raw

Am 09.06.2011 01:28, schrieb Elias Salomão Helou Neto:

>> The simplest way to get an entirely legal free copy of the C++ Standard
is to become actively involved in work on Standardising C++.
>
> How is that simple? Imagine all programmers involved in the process.
> Would it be practical?

It is as simple as asking a contact person from your NB; while I'm not 
active in the ISO C++ process, but rather in SC29 (JPEG), I can ensure 
you that getting into a committee is very easy indeed. However, it 
requires patience and effort to follow the process and contribute to it.
The reason why these "archaic methods" take so long is because lots of 
people with differing opinions meet, and have to come to an agreement. 
That is, the proposals have to be written, read, checked, tested and 
then edited. It is quite a different process from writing up a book or a 
programming language of your own.

>> That entitles you to a copy from your NB. However most people find a
Standard a difficult document, ill-suited to the normal working programmer.
Of course authors of explanatory text books tend to expect to eat and so
usually charge for them :)
>
> So is this the logic? Deny distribution of the standard so text book
> writers can get what to eat?

No, the purpose of the standard is quite different from the purpose of a 
text book. A standard is like a law-book: It's intended audience is that 
of the professional reader, everything is spelled out in very specific 
details, such that every detail is technically correct, and a correct 
implementation can be derived from following the text. This does not 
mean that the text is very pedagogic - it doesn't have to. It has to be 
correct, and has to spell out all details. Nor does the text have to 
tell you how to program or use the language - that's the job of a 
textbook. Nor does the text tell you how a specific implementation 
should look like - only which requirements it has to satisfy. This is 
something very different from what a textbook has to do.

> In fact, as you just said, standardese is
> not for everyone, so text book writers have no reason whatsoever to
> worry about the standard being freely distributable.

A standard is not for the average person to read, indeed. It is a 
toolkit for those who want to implement a standard-conforming compiler 
(for ISO C++) or for those who want to implement a standard-conforming 
codec (for JPEG or MPEG), or... If you want to learn about the language 
features, then leave it to the members of the committee to write text 
books, or to text book authors to buy the standard and write this up as 
a book.

> I would say there is no reason why to charge for the distribution of
> the standard (aren't there sponsors to the standardisation process?).

Because ISO or rather the corresponding national organizations also have 
to cover the cost, namely to pay for the secretary and the 
administration. In Germany, for example, the DIN is an association (a 
"club" if you want to say so), and while the technical experts are not 
paid by the DIN, the DIN hosts a whole infrastructure that eases the 
standarization process.

> There is little arguing against this point, I haven't actually seen
> any.

I guess the whole process is a bit hard to follow from outside, and 
while probably not perfect, it is still a democratic process that tries 
to find compromises between all those that want to contribute. If you're 
not willing to contribute, you can hardly claim that your opinion didn't 
count.

So long,
	Thomas


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

Back to comp.lang.c++.moderated | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Latest draft of C++ 11  Joe Gottman <josephgottman@comcast.net> - 2011-06-05 21:45 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Anthony Williams <anthony.ajw@gmail.com> - 2011-06-06 12:46 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-06 12:44 -0600
    Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-06 15:29 -0600
      Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Elias Salomão Helou Neto <eshneto@gmail.com> - 2011-06-07 03:05 -0600
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting,  Ltd.  Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-07 10:33 -0600
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-08 01:55 -0600
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Elias Salomão Helou Neto <eshneto@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 17:28 -0600
              Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Thomas Richter <thor@math.tu-berlin.de> - 2011-06-09 07:04 -0600
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Elias Salomão Helou Neto <eshneto@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 02:05 -0600
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-06-08 17:23 -0600
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-08 17:31 -0600
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2011-06-08 02:03 -0600
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  John G Harris <news0@nospam.demon.co.uk> - 2011-06-08 17:26 -0600
            Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-09 15:49 -0600
              Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-06-10 02:50 -0600
                Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting,  Ltd.  Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-10 09:22 -0600
      Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Brendan Miller <catphive@catphive.net> - 2011-06-08 02:04 -0600
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-08 17:19 -0600
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Organization: Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd.  Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-08 17:26 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-06-06 12:49 -0600
    Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Helmut Jarausch <jarausch@igpm.rwth-aachen.de> - 2011-06-08 02:06 -0600
      Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  "Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk> - 2011-06-08 17:29 -0600
      Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-08 17:24 -0600
        Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-09 06:57 -0600
          Re: Latest draft of C++ 11 Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> - 2011-06-09 15:53 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2011-06-06 12:45 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Francis Glassborow <francis.glassborow@btinternet.com> - 2011-06-06 12:48 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com> - 2011-06-06 12:48 -0600
  Re: Latest draft of C++ 11  Nicola  Bonelli <nicola.bonelli@gmail.com> - 2011-06-08 02:01 -0600

csiph-web