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.


  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