• bioinfornatics (2/2) Nov 19 2010 hi, why D language doesn't have a standardization (like iso)?
• AnonymousCowboy (3/4) Nov 19 2010 Because it is beneath it.
• Jonathan M Davis (20/22) Nov 19 2010 It takes years to reach that point. While the specification for D2 is no...
• JMRyan (16/20) Nov 21 2010 Standards organizations very often don't get involved until there are

bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> writes:

hi, why D language doesn't have  a standardization (like iso)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization

AnonymousCowboy <AC nospam.net> writes:

== Quote from bioinfornatics (bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org)'s
article
 hi, why D language doesn't have  a standardization (like iso)?

Because it is beneath it.

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Friday 19 November 2010 15:29:15 bioinfornatics wrote:
 hi, why D language doesn't have  a standardization (like iso)?
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization

It takes years to reach that point. While the specification for D2 is now
fairly 
stable, changes are still being made. You would have to have a very stable spec 
before trying to make it an international standard. And honestly, while it's 
nice to have an international standard, I'm not sure that it does all that much 
for you. Most languages - including many major ones - have no international 
standard. For instance, Java, python, and ruby don't have an ISO standard, and 
yet they're heavily used. Take a look here, and you'll see that very few 
languages have ISO standards: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages

Really. I'm not sure that it's all that useful to have them in many cases - 
especially when you have a central place where the language is defined. Many 
languages are designed by one person or group and have specific language 
versions, so you have a specification that tools can use or which other groups 
can implement. It's generally a sign of maturity for a language when it gets an 
ISO standard, but the lack of one doesn't necessarily say anything bad about a 
language. D may very well get an ISO standard some day, but it doesn't need
one, 
and I don't think that it would really be benefited by one at this point. It's 
going to have to be a lot more mature before that's likely a good idea.

- Jonathan M Davis

JMRyan <nospam nospam.com> writes:

bioinfornatics <bioinfornatics fedoraproject.org> wrote in
news:ic718b$1kef$1 digitalmars.com: 

 hi, why D language doesn't have  a standardization (like iso)?
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardiza
 tion 
 

Standards organizations very often don't get involved until there are 
incompatibilities between competing implementations. There are several 
implementations of D, but they are all based on the Digital Mars front end.  
There just aren't the incompatibilities out there that require a standards 
organization's involvement.

Incompatibilities aren't the only problems that standards organizations try 
to solve.  But they nonetheless exist to solve problems.  There are indeed 
problems with D (it still counts as a young language with kinks still to be 
worked out and with weak third party support), but those issues are not the 
kinds that fall under the purview of standards organizations.

Note that open source development of a language helps prevent the need for 
standards organization involvement.  This is at least partly why Perl, PHP, 
and Python don't have standards organization definition.  Since D's front 
end is open source, it may never need a standards organization definition.