Fast track into a brick wall

Print Friendly

Here’s a link to a nice entry by my colleague Rob Weir regarding an ISO fast track proposal that didn’t do so well: “Fast Track. Wrong Direction.”

It’s probably best that no one claimed victory after the contradiction period.

In my last post I quoted Pogo. Here’s an apropos one in this case from George Santayana:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.


2 Comments

  1. The problem with the Santayana quote in this context is the number of Fast Track submissions (e.g., the ones for EcmaScript, C#, and the CLI) that are successful. If there is a lesson here, I think it will be that one must not wait to the next ballot to address and remedy the objections that come in during any contradiction period.

    In other respects, I am not surprised that the C++/CLI submission failed at ISO. I don’t find the situation with respect to ECMA-376 is comparable. The origination of the supposed ECMA-376 contradictions is quite different for one, the C++/CLI problem was not one of supposed unnecessary duplication of any kind, and there was no competing/conflicting existing standard to C++/CLI (but it bypassed an existing standards-development track that is busily enriching the C++ specifications).

    I think the biggest failing of C++/CLI is that it lacked a constituency with a strongly-felt need beyond a niche subset of developers for Microsoft platforms. The constituencies for ECMA-376 and the stakeholders in capturing the Office legacy present a very different situation.

  2. I’m guessing that in the future there will be a lot fewer fast track submissions until some of the glitches get ironed out.

Comments are closed