show us practical examples of wrong behavior, please. Not theoretical discussion. Actual programs that already exist that break silently and that we haven't fixed. As opposed to actual programs that were silently broken and that our change fixed.
-
-
but sometimes, the standards process gets hacked, or too slow, or bad. Older story \oe isn't in ISO Latin 1, because the french representative was from Bull, whose printers didn't do \oe at the time There are definitive problems with the C standard. Take restrict, for instance.
-
Individual standards are very flawed yes. But the principle of (flawed) consensus, common base expectations, avoiding vigilante changes, etc. is still worth a lot.
-
there's a chicken & egg issue at work. Sometimes you do change stuff because then you hope to force the standard.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Remember that a lot of standard bodies are influenced by politics. Take the W3C and DRM for instance. Or Open Document Formats and Microsoft.
-
In other cases, standards just adapt to actual practices. And then, the best way to get things moving is to implement things in a better way, and hope the standard will tag along.
-
Like, do you really think the "safe" string functions in the addendum to the C standard are a good idea (you know, strcpy_s and friends) ? Or for that matter, we standardized (NOT) on stream-based System5 network APIs. sockets won because they're better.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.