John Goerzen writes:
There was a brief discussion on #haskell today about the Haskell standard. I'd like to get opinions from more people, and ask if there is any effort being done in this direction presently.
<snip>
I know that some people would like to hold off on such a process until their favorite feature (we'll call it feature X) is finished. I would argue that incremental addendums to the standard should be made more frequently, so that new features can be standardized more easily. Thoughts?
I can contribute some experience from commercial standardization efforts. ANSI, IEEE, and ISO standards require re-ballotting every five years, otherwise the standards lapse. Reballotting may or may not be accompanied by changes in the standard; for a standard as complex as a language, new versions at least every five years seems to be fairly common with "newer" standards (ANSI C has not changed in newer standardization ballots as far as I know).
The trade-off for standards is between stability for tool developers and learners and stagnation. If the standard changes too often, there will be only one developer (the one effectively "in charge" of the standard) and it will tend to not be taught anywhere (because what students learn is obsolete too quickly). If the standard is unchanged too long, it becomes irrelevant and obsolete and no one pays attention to it. Five years is what the general industry seems to have settled on as a good average, but it may or may not apply here; the circumstances are different. Developers of Haskell are pretty much volunteers and academics; that changes things. On the other hand, it is a rapidly developing field.
How all this shakes out is something for the community at large to decide; however, that is what happens in other standards bodies.
Dave Barton EDAptive Computing _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
