[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support)
From: |
DJ Chase |
Subject: |
Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support) |
Date: |
Sun, 14 Aug 2022 19:43:51 +0000 |
On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 12:32 PM EDT, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On 8/14/22 16:49, DJ Chase wrote:
> > On Sun Aug 14, 2022 at 9:56 AM EDT, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> >> You appear to massively overrate the importance end-users
> >> typically attribute to standardization.
> >
> > That’s probably because *I* massively overrate the importance of
> > standardization (I mean I literally carry a standards binder with me).
> > Still, though, it’s rather annoying that end users — especially
> > programmers — don’t value standards as much.
>
> (Official) standardization isn't necessarily a good thing. With C, it
> was originally good, in the times of ISO C89. Now, it's doing more
> damage to the language and current implementations than any good (it's
> still doing some good, but a lot of bad).
>
> [Snipped because I’m not going to quote the whole email — see previous
> message for argument]
>
> I think it's better to let natural selection to work out its way. If a
> feature is good, other implementations will pick it, and maybe even
> improve it. If a feature is not good (or it's not needed by other
> systems), it will not be portable.
True; prescriptive standards can certainly make some things worse. As a
further example, ISO 8601 sucks. I mean, its core specification is
great, but there are so many different ways that are allowed that the
full standard is almost completely unparseable. It also uses a slash
between the start and end times of a period instead of something
sensible, like, I don’t know, an en-dash! Which means that periods can
be written with a slash (because that’s the standard) but also with an
en-dash (because that’s how ranges work in English), but also that one
can’t properly write a period in a file name or URI.
Still, though, I think descriptive standards can be net-positive. The
POSIX shell utilities comes to mind. Sure, they certainly have some
issues, but because it’s a trailing standard, implementers are free to
fix them.
Do you think that a descriptive/trailing standard could be beneficial
or would you still say that it could mostly hinder *roff
implementations?
Cheers,
--
DJ Chase
They, Them, Theirs
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix, (continued)
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix, G. Branden Robinson, 2022/08/11
- Re: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix, Ingo Schwarze, 2022/08/12
- *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix), G. Branden Robinson, 2022/08/12
- Re: *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix), G. Branden Robinson, 2022/08/13
- Re: *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix), Ingo Schwarze, 2022/08/14
- Re: *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix), G. Branden Robinson, 2022/08/14
- Re: *roff `\~` support (was: [PATCH 4/6] xattr.7: wfix), DJ Chase, 2022/08/13
- Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), Ingo Schwarze, 2022/08/14
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), DJ Chase, 2022/08/14
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), Alejandro Colomar, 2022/08/14
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support),
DJ Chase <=
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), Alejandro Colomar, 2022/08/15
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), Ingo Schwarze, 2022/08/16
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), G. Branden Robinson, 2022/08/14
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), DJ Chase, 2022/08/14
- Re: Standardize roff (was: *roff `\~` support), Sam Varshavchik, 2022/08/14
- Re: Standardize roff, Ingo Schwarze, 2022/08/16
- Re: Standardize roff, Sam Varshavchik, 2022/08/16
- Re: Standardize roff, Alexis, 2022/08/16