On the subject of standards - was - On the use of ANSi

Why do we have standards? And who sets them? And who protects them? When I first encountered standards bodies in the computer industry I thought they were a good idea. Then I encountered X.25. A standard for data exchange. The only problem was there were 4 groups who really defined the X.25 standard, and they all had a vested interest. OK there were other representatives on the committee but the people who did all the work and made all the decisions were suppliers who were selling X.25. And guess what, even though they all agreed on a standard, each vested interest implemented the standard in such a way that use of it became almost proprietary. As for SQL - another great idea. But who really defined the standard? Not the user base. Not the hardware companies. But the vested interest relational database companies. And what does that really mean to the standard - it is the lowest common denominator of the facilities available from the vested interests. And again they have all extended beyond the standard to make their products proprietary. So when anybody says "standard" to me I always think of who set up the standards bodies and why was it set up. Just think about it. What does ASCII really mean? And why doesn't it work worldwide? What does ANSI stand for - and is it really the best idea, or the idea that gives the best profit to the capitalists. I'm sorry, but until the users are allowed to define the standards and the capitalists are kept out of the loop I will treat any "we adhere to xyz standard" with the contempt it deserves. Sorry Serge! Malcolm -----Original Message----- From: owner-informix-list@iiug.org [mailto:owner-informix-list@iiug.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Hamm Sent: 15 June 2004 04:47 To: informix-list@iiug.org Subject: Re: On the use of ANSi Serge Rielau wrote: > That may be true in some cases (got examples?). > However, in general having different groups of > people look at the same requirement leads to a level of abstraction a > single group of developers can't achieve. Many years ago I have fond (no, not) memories of reading the ANSI database details in the Informix manual, and repeatedly shaking my head at the pointless OCD assumptions. Have examples? Not any more. Am I going to re-read the manual just to make a list of silly assumptions? no. sending to informix-list

malcolm weallans wrote: > As for SQL - another great idea. But who really defined the standard? > Not the user base. There is nothing restricting the user base from participating. But who has enough time to do it? > Not the hardware companies. Why would they? Let them deal with SCSI and ISA and PCI.. > But the vested interest relational database companies. There are also ISVs who particpiate in the SQL Standard committee > And what does that really mean to the standard - it is the lowest > common denominator of the facilities > available from the vested interests. And again they have all extended > beyond the standard to make their products proprietary. Unfortunately true. There are two problems here: 1. Like any more or less democratic process, reaching a decision takes a long time in a standard - too slow for the needs of customers in thsi fast paced industry. 2. Bringing proposals to the standard in beforehand reveals a company's intention. Example: In 2000 I canvassed reactions for SELECT FROM INSERT in the DB2 newsgroup (I try to at least ask the user base). But I would have rather bitten my tongue than tipping of Oracle and MS how serious this was. Nonetheless we have started the process of standardization - and I'm confident it will go through. By contrast MERGE first went through the standard, then into Oracle and DB2 (and then was extended upon by both companies which will go back into the standard) > So when anybody says "standard" to me I always think of who set up the > standards bodies and why was it set up. Just think about it. Standards are relevant as long as there is a need to communicate. Who decided on the width of railway tracks? The shapes of powerplugs, batteries, etc... They likely didn't start out the way they are today. There is always a fight between proprietary and open. Philips screwdriver vs. special tool only your mechanic has. > What does > ASCII really mean? And why doesn't it work worldwide? What does ANSI > stand for - and is it really the best idea, or the idea that gives the > best profit to the capitalists. ASCII works great for what it's worth. UNICODE gets the job done. Note that SQL also is an ISO standard > I'm sorry, but until the users are allowed to define the standards and > the capitalists are kept out of the loop I will treat any "we adhere to > xyz standard" with the contempt it deserves. Users are allowed. There is nothing preventing you from founding a User Interest Group for SQL, go through whatever formalities are needed to register and start submitting papers. > Sorry Serge! Hey that's OK. Believe me I'm bitter when it comes to not being able to use my cell phone when I fly "home" in two weeks, and I need an adaptor for my razor. I have one consolation though: As technology matures standards stabilize. There will always be hold outs (like Brits driving on the left side) and the odd traffic sign, but by and large with commoditization comes standardization. DBMS are on the way towards standardization. If a DBMS wants to be part of the party it has to comply. That's why SQL Server and Oracle added ANSI JOIN syntax and the WITH clause. Successful quasi standard features get absorbed (modified to fit) like Sequences and Identity. I see loose casting rules happening in teh future. The user base (!) seems to like them. What can we do. If you want to see it happen be on the receiving end of an SAP request. There also was a really interesting article by Jim Melton somewhere on OTN on the future of the SQL Standard. I suppose it wasn't biased enough. Seems to be purged. Cheers Serge -- Serge Rielau DB2 SQL Compiler Development IBM Toronto Lab