- Email: [email protected]
Current issues in programming language standardisation: II
71
Current Issues in Programming Language Standardisation: II D.L. F I S H E R Computer Laboratory, The University, Leicester LEI 7RH, United Kingdom
This paper looks at issues of standardisation in the general field of programming languages as current at September 1983.
follows the same convention. The reference date of [1] was 1 January 1980; the reference date of this set of updated comments is 1 September 1983. I feel that most of the comments made in part 2 of [1] still hold true, but changes are taking place across a broad front.
Key words: Programming language standardisation
2. Participation in standards work 1. Introduction
This paper contributes further discussion to that in part 2 of the book Programming Language Standardisation [1] on issues involved in standards activities in that field. It is one of a set published simultaneously in the same issue of the journal Computers & Standards, each by a contributor to the original discussion, with the aim of updating the comments then made in the light of subsequent developments. Part 2 of [1] was produced in 'conversational' first-person form, and this paper
Fisher left Oxfird in 1956 with a First Class Honours Degree in Mathematics and promptly joined the aircraft industry as a computer programmer. In 1959 he joined the UKAEA as a programmer/physicist working on plasma physics. In 1962 he moved with the work from Aldermaston to the Culham Laboratory, whereupon he produced his first computer movie. At Culham, Fisher worked on large M H D (magneto-hydrodynamic) programs written in F O R T R A N and established movies as a standard (and cheap) output option for these programs. He produced his last movie just before moving to the Bank of Scotland in 1968 where he was promoted to Programming Manager in 1969. In 1974 he joined the University of Leicester as Director of the Computer Laboratory and re-entered computer graphics in an administrative support role. He founded the Ghost Users' Group in 1976, ISO TC 97/Sc 5 / W G 2 and BSI O I S / 5 / W G 5 in 1977. He has nurtured the N A G Graphical Supplement from his original idea to the present, and has successfully lobbied the SERC and the EEC for support for the certification of graphics standards particularly with respect to GKS.
North-Holland Computers & Standards 3 (1984) 71-72
I complained ([1], p. 229]) of the general quality of membership of standards committees, but technical competence and awareness is improving on both sides of the Atlantic. There is less dead wood around, and very few people these days use attendance at a standards committee as an excuse for a day out from the office. Most are prepared to do some real work, as opposed to merely contributing to the debate. The trends are all in the right direction, but the rate of change is, as always, frustratingly slow. Funding to support participation in standards work remains a problem ([1], p. 229-230).
2. Approaches to Standards
However, I would prefer to raise a problem that obviously has been around a long time, but one which has only recently been drawn fully to my attention. This is the different attitude to standards on the two sides of the Atlantic. It is exacerbated by problems of communication. Too often one community sees only the results of the deliberations of the other, and does not appreciate the reasoning behind the decisions taken. Thus, understanding is minimised and the risk of conflict is maximised. There are substantial philosophical differences. The Americans are very isolationist. They are energetic and good at getting things done, but they can be untidy, lacking rigour and method. They worry little about extensions and order, whereas the Europeans are good on theory, technique, con-
72
D.L. Fisher / Current Issues in Programming Language Standardisation: 11
sistency and completeness, but are so individualistic that they can take absolutely ages to resolve problems.
3. National and International Standards National software standards have little meaning these days. International standards are required whether they stem from ANSI, BSI, or wherever. Improved international collaboration is necessary. Europe must improve its representation on X3J3 ( F O R T R A N ) , X3J4 (COBOL), and CODASYL, for example, and help to shape the Languages, just as the Americans have been encouraged to participate in G K S (graphics). The British Department of Industry finances one U.K. member of X3J2 (BASIC), but it is
actually more important for the U.K, to have effective members on X3J3 and X3J4. Nonetheless, the U.K. is more aware of these needs than most other European states, and there is a case for the EEC making good the collective deficiencies of its member states. I should like to see much closer and deliberate transatlantic cooperation. There is now sufficient m o m e n t u m and energy in the software standards movement as a whole to do what needs to be done, provided that drive is subject to better control, direction, and distribution.
Reference [1] I.D. Hill and B.L. Meek (eds), Programming Language Standardisation, Ellis Horwood, Chichester; Halsted Press, New York.
Current Issues in Programming Language Standardisation: II D.L. F I S H E R Computer Laboratory, The University, Leicester LEI 7RH, United Kingdom
This paper looks at issues of standardisation in the general field of programming languages as current at September 1983.
follows the same convention. The reference date of [1] was 1 January 1980; the reference date of this set of updated comments is 1 September 1983. I feel that most of the comments made in part 2 of [1] still hold true, but changes are taking place across a broad front.
Key words: Programming language standardisation
2. Participation in standards work 1. Introduction
This paper contributes further discussion to that in part 2 of the book Programming Language Standardisation [1] on issues involved in standards activities in that field. It is one of a set published simultaneously in the same issue of the journal Computers & Standards, each by a contributor to the original discussion, with the aim of updating the comments then made in the light of subsequent developments. Part 2 of [1] was produced in 'conversational' first-person form, and this paper
Fisher left Oxfird in 1956 with a First Class Honours Degree in Mathematics and promptly joined the aircraft industry as a computer programmer. In 1959 he joined the UKAEA as a programmer/physicist working on plasma physics. In 1962 he moved with the work from Aldermaston to the Culham Laboratory, whereupon he produced his first computer movie. At Culham, Fisher worked on large M H D (magneto-hydrodynamic) programs written in F O R T R A N and established movies as a standard (and cheap) output option for these programs. He produced his last movie just before moving to the Bank of Scotland in 1968 where he was promoted to Programming Manager in 1969. In 1974 he joined the University of Leicester as Director of the Computer Laboratory and re-entered computer graphics in an administrative support role. He founded the Ghost Users' Group in 1976, ISO TC 97/Sc 5 / W G 2 and BSI O I S / 5 / W G 5 in 1977. He has nurtured the N A G Graphical Supplement from his original idea to the present, and has successfully lobbied the SERC and the EEC for support for the certification of graphics standards particularly with respect to GKS.
North-Holland Computers & Standards 3 (1984) 71-72
I complained ([1], p. 229]) of the general quality of membership of standards committees, but technical competence and awareness is improving on both sides of the Atlantic. There is less dead wood around, and very few people these days use attendance at a standards committee as an excuse for a day out from the office. Most are prepared to do some real work, as opposed to merely contributing to the debate. The trends are all in the right direction, but the rate of change is, as always, frustratingly slow. Funding to support participation in standards work remains a problem ([1], p. 229-230).
2. Approaches to Standards
However, I would prefer to raise a problem that obviously has been around a long time, but one which has only recently been drawn fully to my attention. This is the different attitude to standards on the two sides of the Atlantic. It is exacerbated by problems of communication. Too often one community sees only the results of the deliberations of the other, and does not appreciate the reasoning behind the decisions taken. Thus, understanding is minimised and the risk of conflict is maximised. There are substantial philosophical differences. The Americans are very isolationist. They are energetic and good at getting things done, but they can be untidy, lacking rigour and method. They worry little about extensions and order, whereas the Europeans are good on theory, technique, con-
72
D.L. Fisher / Current Issues in Programming Language Standardisation: 11
sistency and completeness, but are so individualistic that they can take absolutely ages to resolve problems.
3. National and International Standards National software standards have little meaning these days. International standards are required whether they stem from ANSI, BSI, or wherever. Improved international collaboration is necessary. Europe must improve its representation on X3J3 ( F O R T R A N ) , X3J4 (COBOL), and CODASYL, for example, and help to shape the Languages, just as the Americans have been encouraged to participate in G K S (graphics). The British Department of Industry finances one U.K. member of X3J2 (BASIC), but it is
actually more important for the U.K, to have effective members on X3J3 and X3J4. Nonetheless, the U.K. is more aware of these needs than most other European states, and there is a case for the EEC making good the collective deficiencies of its member states. I should like to see much closer and deliberate transatlantic cooperation. There is now sufficient m o m e n t u m and energy in the software standards movement as a whole to do what needs to be done, provided that drive is subject to better control, direction, and distribution.
Reference [1] I.D. Hill and B.L. Meek (eds), Programming Language Standardisation, Ellis Horwood, Chichester; Halsted Press, New York.