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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16028 invoked from network); 17 Aug 2023 22:11:56 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 17 Aug 2023 22:11:56 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C0540AE1; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 08:11:55 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuhs.org; s=dkim; t=1692310315; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-owner:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post; bh=3XKhDa027H1EAg3amBzbvyAW13VhErCu/H4vwLkFBiQ=; b=PD9+soPpZvsDrrAseYe9U7QdxHlXBvrzLympCm+K1uYFCi6huMYxUWEyEiODQl5TWQ2Z8X ZC01u3O6fW7zlZZDbTfdIUvbVNp7c0w7HcpobC0NGSMVhrtLUcBsD4pR0gUwQBP7dfywSs /J5B0LoAYQLNwLj36F3SBAcbZF2FqVI= Received: from mail-4325.protonmail.ch (mail-4325.protonmail.ch [185.70.43.25]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AC7840034 for ; Fri, 18 Aug 2023 08:11:49 +1000 (AEST) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 22:11:27 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1692310306; x=1692569506; bh=3XKhDa027H1EAg3amBzbvyAW13VhErCu/H4vwLkFBiQ=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector; b=dpYVwQTewDnLVS+6DtYVW1AspvqwOGT9cYk9zAhbYwKfU2AVhmdQCxE/qCXHzYuqw UiHXyYsqD6dVVbVKS0VCJUswu0LVU5M3q9h1yQudQdsodMhYKTIgCw3qSGrEqrEpKt va/nJiGHQlM4OjcFeyL9nGA9BsAoJGUKPejo97nGvm3056CWRGTLHaurMwdeRcgVGQ pJ2Er+xH/sX/fiC0R4KZSQVCJJXEzazHvm0fvPYV4O81PArmRH5USa1+UE+bqkxGE6 J0lSTm9bSDlXkW5qvIL2IaSHzb587a9cbkYfGtYqiraIYGXgvRT6szNhIUoLpTSBfu QWeuxPu74+shQ== To: Paul Winalski Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Feedback-ID: 35591162:user:proton MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID-Hash: GFMM4XFXVZ5TMR2CLZQGXSS7CMFKQEWW X-Message-ID-Hash: GFMM4XFXVZ5TMR2CLZQGXSS7CMFKQEWW X-MailFrom: segaloco@protonmail.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: From: segaloco via COFF Reply-To: segaloco > 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). >=20 > -Paul W. That's actually a very, very good comparison, it certainly helps me see it = in a different way. For some of the background on the angle I'm approaching this from: I've wo= rked in the EPA-regulated US environmental sector since late 2012, first as= a chemist for 4 years until enough patches and suggestions up to our data = system team got me on their radar enough to jump over the fence. Back in t= he lab days, our governing literature came from only a handful of sources: - EPA SW-846 ("Waste") - EPA Clean Water Act (NPDES, "Wastewater") - ASTM - Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater Each of these groups maintains (the former two, gratis, the later two for l= icensing fees...) a plethora of chemical analysis methodology, often quite = prescriptive, describing the legal expectations of running that method. In= all my time working with the methods, we always, and I mean *always* had a= copy of the legally binding document at arms length, often copies littered= throughout the lab (although any formal investigation or dispute required = a "controlled" signed and dated copy from the QA office.) On the flip side= , I don't recall seeing *any* sort of general literature books around the l= ab akin to the computing books we see everywhere that were derivatives and = digestions *of* the lore that was the legally binding method text. Then ou= r work is usually broken up by program (and by matrix i.e. solid, water, or= ganic waste) and the appropriate method for the program, permit, and sample= matrix must be strictly adhered to. For instance, if you are running anyt= hing related to the Clean Water Act in wastewater for mid-level heavy metal= s analysis, it must be EPA method 200.7, no ifs ands or buts about it. As = such, working from literally any other document is just setting yourself up= for disaster because then, what if that author left out that you need to p= erform a filtration on the field-preserved sample before it goes on the ins= trument or it isn't valid 200.7 analysis? A book on ICP-AES may not tell y= ou that, some random work someone wrote commenting on their experiences or = observations with heavy metals analysis may not mention that little bit, bu= t you can sure as heck bet that it will be precisely in section whatever su= bsection whatever paragraph whatever of the legally binding document. If y= ou didn't read the standard and skipped this step, at the very least your d= ata gets recalled, at most, you wind up in court for data fraud. Am I getting into apples vs oranges here? Is the difference here that stan= dards 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 sa= y that you are programming in a given programming language, or to sell prod= ucts on a specific platform or in a specific industry, or something like th= at. Perhaps what I'm missing is the difference between the regulatory teet= h involved in the EPA's expectation of data quality vs the fact that "quali= ty" in off the shelf computing products on the private market is a suggesti= on, not a legal requirement to even operate? Is it that standards existed = as a way to give products a nice marketing banner to fly under if they so c= hose and way to signal quality and compatibility to customers with the conf= idence that others won't go parading around like they're also comparable wh= en they really aren't? That would certainly explain the difference between= what I see in my chemistry side of things and what I see in computing if t= he expectation of computing standards is just "you don't have to follow thi= s, but if you do you can flaunt it"? To put it even shorter, as a chemist working with regulatory EPA methodolog= y, my bookshelf better be full of those legal documents and my work better = *perfectly* match it or I can find myself in all sorts of hot water. For m= ost bookshelves of programming books I've seen in stores, libraries, profes= sors offices, etc. I scarcely *ever* see governing documents at all despite= countless languages being legally defined and yet everyone hums along busi= ness as usual. Thanks for entertaining this question by the way, it's kind= a "out there" but this is like the only circle of folks I've found that I c= onsistently hear good insights on this sort of stuff from, which I apprecia= te. I wish I could articulate what I'm getting at more succinctly but it i= s what it is. - Matt G.