From meissner@euclid.math.usfca.edu Tue Feb  7 09:08:42 1995
Received: from euclid.math.usfca.edu by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA16306
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Wed, 8 Feb 1995 02:06:45 +0100
Received: by euclid.math.usfca.edu (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03)
          id AA43813; Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:08:42 -0800
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:08:42 -0800
From: meissner@euclid.math.usfca.edu (Loren P. Meissner)
Message-Id: <9502080108.AA43813@euclid.math.usfca.edu>
To: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk, walt@swcp.com
Subject: Re:  (SC22WG5.694) ISO, DIN, ANSI, JSA, ...
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29

My reaction, as it has been before, is WHO NEEDS 'EM?

I think programming language standards can be constructed
independently of the present standards bureaucracy, with
at least as much effect as at present. Even in countries
with "mandatory" standards, the acceptance by builders and
users is more important than the imprimatur and can be
achieved without it.

A recent example is High Performance Fortran. They are
staying independent of the bureaucracy, and seem to be
succeeding because of wide participation and a sensible
goal, not because of any kind of official seal of
approval.

Fortran 90 is succeeding because it is well designed,
not because it is ISO/IEC/ANSI Standard Number So and So.

--Loren Meissner