From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 8820 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2023 20:23:03 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Aug 2023 20:23:03 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C0E40AE1; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 06:23:00 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D492A40034 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 06:22:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2680eee423aso140454a91.2 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:22:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1692303769; x=1692908569; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=oLRqrl5KOz0BGXy3NDhItTvMYhQ2Hm/UxRNFHarFhNk=; b=LQtEg7LU7tdWhPDoeB11nTkI5etk1S9zHaNWSRJCqILQOjVHxTvRkHqaKOf1K8/XVi nDzKRyb0b0sZTHNvouxpKu5TERbbeMxU9hYVkz4hb+/UZlFQ6w2maJxAgZdLQTM0ZSJQ RAfbnJSsuwUCJ+kIZfcSjx7odvT0VZ4mMiO90vXqbZh/ZFVkFshLdeCd7hp74mRj9jVa 0BgskVLYu6ayLzamQwXVFRk+zhi8aXIHDvWDlhd3RE/iis4W0fYyjSvkZTa4WztyQclB wxS5ixBoa30uZvlHWDXeuckVcOqnXiUIUtTbtdY2Xz9pQNLrNZ6ZUgHMYCqHIVpK4D+n Xt2w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692303769; x=1692908569; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=oLRqrl5KOz0BGXy3NDhItTvMYhQ2Hm/UxRNFHarFhNk=; b=Yo/8EUsUdtUyD1+N4EWX7bqku8JcBtKd9259wVd90iGsXkco+gUO5fU3XYXBEKa8tz hYWQFHdkYpDpsQomrOwwz7v3A70iunkkdJSSGszIF5amFZgqu4tF2iUkSyZK85ywGm4X vJOrOv7H4SotX08hb/BgCpqnD01Fr7VT6xcy0e5PLCUm1COfsFjGm/OfXmcqGyIDtAcS v1ElrKjbtF94rJJW4h5JMGxvZpr4CSiY45I/cvSRZdwC0D8/CLpUTT9p2txJqTDIJM++ khDXchvh4c2WYBCUOo+FUdUl9lwQulU5frEkh758+cUjao2dIU5aGKVT9Nsj+cjqaBgo nJYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx6fcO/McDKsSw3APM+qqGnUTSiLeCZ1PNvay0tkQd4oRQ2dT8q DGs9X88yPkIZdo9PyP/wqB2M/wD3xUlqtzZw/OYnXVSe X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH6W9RA1Lgr4A3x3rNJR2+MzOMf2A3tqr37JIsafz1q0oQXgYeqMmxd0xhDOUOJTLqhABt7ZCbR3yzH9vOYce0= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:390b:b0:268:36a2:bd0 with SMTP id ob11-20020a17090b390b00b0026836a20bd0mr599511pjb.8.1692303769045; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:22:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6a11:af1a:b0:4c1:7ec0:eb04 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 13:22:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Paul Winalski Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 16:22:48 -0400 Message-ID: To: segaloco Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID-Hash: 5FQ2MNAPOSVVMKU3WYVEHCEQSAJZX3B6 X-Message-ID-Hash: 5FQ2MNAPOSVVMKU3WYVEHCEQSAJZX3B6 X-MailFrom: paul.winalski@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: COFF X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [COFF] Re: Commonality of 60s-80s Print Standards List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 8/17/23, segaloco via COFF wrote: > > To summarize, why do print copies of primary standards from the elden days > of computing seem like cryptids while one can flatten themselves into a > pancake under the mountains upon mountains of derivative materials out > there? Why is filtered material infinitely more common than the literal > rule of law governing the languages? I worked as a software engineer in the 1980s and '90s in Digital Equipment Corporation's unit that developed tools for programmers, including the compilers. I don't recall the policies and procedures of the various ANSI computer language standards committees regarding publication of the standards. I think the reason that there aren't many extant copies of them out there is that not many people actually cared what the standard said. What was important was the details of the particular implementation of the language that you as a programmer had to use. Even within DEC's compiler group, there were only a couple of copies of the ANSI standard document for any particular language. A typical compiler group has only one engineer tasked with standard interpretation and compliance. The rest of the compiler developers work from the specification for the upcoming release. > For instance the closest thing to the > legitimate ANSI C standard, a world-changing document, that I can find is > the "annotated" version, which thankfully is the full text but blown up to > twice the thickness just to include commentary. My bookshelf is starting to > run out of room to accommodate noise like that when there are nice succint > "the final answer" documents that take up much less space but seem to > virtually not exist... For a compiler developer, that isn't "noise". Official specifications for computer languages often contain--despite the best efforts of the committee members to prevent them--errors, inconsistencies, vague language, and outright contradictions. It's the compiler developers--especially those working on incoming bug reports--who have to deal with problems in the standard. It helps to have an idea of what the committee members' intentions were, and what their rationale was, for particular verbiage in the standard. I know DEC's representatives to the C standard committee, and in the case of the C and Fortran standards the extra verbiage was completely intentional. In case law, the Judge's decision in a trial usually is a page long, sometimes only a sentence or two. But there may be 80 pages of legal reasoning explaining just why the judge came to that conclusion. Compiler developers end up being language lawyers. When a problem comes up regarding a language feature, they want to know the committee's intentions and rationale for why the standard says what it does say (or appears to say). -Paul W.