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 14045 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2023 14:07:46 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 18 Aug 2023 14:07:46 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802F040FB0; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 00:07:43 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pj1-x102a.google.com (mail-pj1-x102a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102a]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E62ED40AE0 for ; Sat, 19 Aug 2023 00:07:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pj1-x102a.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-26837895fbbso714047a91.3 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:07:30 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1692367650; x=1692972450; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hulrOd8boVGRBOqrkt+T3Hp08CKHjKIP4LTxiEvFblw=; b=Buc/KU0vT5YNshcvvRCcKzs2tZTL0zTi77/aeS7BC8L0LiQ/wEwXOnh0NYjqnnwWLk sK638HLvSAFK0GEUdE/7V4ofvkT9KolALHke0nP9Uaak/bgasRwSVW3u86QXzochFpF9 iidykH4T/gDE1fpIYFaZ0XuLvV72PqRmAKrHNAGcvp9E8ISlkG6tEm92jldGle7PWLdr XjAT5WnwQpUkuPSNaMK4gzaMTvSO/Rwqqq3divvijbE7K7NE4Wq0gMFDeR7LmOajVbaZ Cez0uhJkU2qDRNr59508xAdFJaYBFUAYP4soqP97NvgSbo9u+1drcAyZhLL1ujbWV/7+ wCvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1692367650; x=1692972450; 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=hulrOd8boVGRBOqrkt+T3Hp08CKHjKIP4LTxiEvFblw=; b=Gc6LNHR0lZnDzBCDbL84oGJgNX8YhKsFex1/4LRCWFUclso0iL9JfVgn6jfOFzTr+T c/hFxhH0iFGygsqDi8BG2+x7nSikcDINlj7QHDj3OI/J/VQOp9JyKUl67arAv9Ta0ysn dD5g2T5M+98OUc3En4aXNtU8SJL/QaP8hENdtTHlmL16dUQwuoOlxLH3uekDKuPpvVO5 7BzXqEDDuZ26v7rUXF67SjWDgWdX7v6pa3eOCsAXquQQ3Mqfs21hjn82TzBZdZPcjfH/ F65U/kuAiZtMV2XeasCncMtzCd5AIhmLdjwrSGKq6w8uo/uGTrJpq2jIf0FpatAighBp Qgug== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzfzPrsCMZY2M8QlMniG5dgHvQUEDLoqi0M40hX0OTCDE11wZix yCOITeS1OQD9YBRlBjBE/mEgL8PcFaJZKWDyFX0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFbbLxPfrHJUfZ+pTAs5vQdTYlPQwGQxDRWhCUFpmDfOpM5ku+f7lIL2M0iA2jh+h9+CzdokR7crr8FcjMhNro= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:1d03:b0:26d:1e39:faae with SMTP id on3-20020a17090b1d0300b0026d1e39faaemr2502623pjb.22.1692367649971; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:a05:6a11:af1a:b0:4c1:7ec0:eb04 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 07:07:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Paul Winalski Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2023 10:07:29 -0400 Message-ID: To: segaloco Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID-Hash: 24MNXZD5EQCDMXZ7LNHEZ5VUYDECTM35 X-Message-ID-Hash: 24MNXZD5EQCDMXZ7LNHEZ5VUYDECTM35 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 wrote: > > IIs the difference here that > standards like the ANSI standards here are more like "you must conform to > this to say that you conform to it" but you do not need to conform to this > to say that you are programming in a given programming language, or to sell > products on a specific platform or in a specific industry, or something like > that. Here I think you have found the crux of the matter. A big difference between the ANSI standards for programming languages and the EPA regulations is the legal requirement for conformance. Nobody who uses a programming language is under any sort of legal requirement to conform to the ANSI standard--neither those who write compilers for the language, nor those who write programs in that language. The only "enforcement" of the standard that exists is consumer fraud law. If you market a compiler claiming that it is ANSI standard-compliant, and it isn't, you could be liable for civil or possibly criminal fraud/ But that's it. Very different from the EPA regulations that you cited, where failure to conform to the regulations can have very severe legal and financial consequences. Hence the lack of widespread use of the standards documents. Proper ANSI language standard compliance is important to compiler vendors who claim that their product conforms to the standard. The compiler groups I have worked in at DEC and Intel have had someone on the front end team for each language who is an expert on the fine print of the standard and whose job it is to see to it that the product (the compiler) stays standard-conformant. This person does have a complete copy of the ANSI standard on their desk. Users of compilers claiming to be standard-conformant are under no legal obligation whatsoever to write standard-conformant programs. There is thus no reason for them to have a copy of the standard readily at hand. However, every IT shop I've worked in does have their own in-house standard for programming practices, and this includes which features of the programming language are allowed to be used and sometimes how they are to be used. In a well-run programming shop, these rules are written down in detail, every programmer has a copy of them, and they are rigidly enforced--you can't check in your code if you've violated them. Failure to follow the in-house programming regulations can also have negative career advancement implications. -Paul W.