Standardization of D

[Sean Kelly]

BCS wrote:
> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> 
>> I know, but that is not a standard, it's a specification. A standar
>> is predictable and has an agenda, and meetings, and people discuss
>> and desitions are taken by more than one only person.
> 
> Well if that is a standard, then lets NOT standardize D!!
> 
> The parts of a "standard" I have any use for is the part that lets you
> use it. I don't give a ___ how it's made (D seems to do well with King
> Walter) just what it says. IIRC in mechanical systems, standards are
> things like "threads are this shape" not the people that define them
> (that is a standard committee or organization).

To be fair, a standard represents some sort of agreement among people,
typically about a design.  And the usefulness of a standard is directly
tied to how many people agree about that design--the most common way of
reaching a consensus being a committee.  So the D language is 'standard'
insofar as that we have all agreed to follow the design.  The situation
is a bit unstable in that it relies on the receptiveness and the talents
of one individual (ie. Walter), but fortunately he has proven himself up
to the task so far.


Sean