🚀 go-pugleaf

The recent discussion about ISO's WG17 has been too much in the
spirit of alt.flames.  There may be a number of irreconcilable
camps but they do not need to be ARMED camps.

-----

Many people, including myself, have been too busy to participate
actively in the standardisation effort.  The active committee
members deserve our thanks.  We may not like them, respect them,
nor agree with them; but their long hours will benefit all Prolog
users and vendors.

I know how difficult standardisation is: I was responsible
for implementing a new ANSI-C library while the standard
was still being written.  I had many long discussions with
our company's ANSI representative.  What at first seemed to be an
obvious defect in the draft standard turned out to be much more
difficult to resolve in the context of other computer systems
(and in 20 years, I've seen a variety of systems).

-----

So, with the intention of getting a useful Prolog Standard:

- Remember that that this is comp.lang.PROLOG, not
  comp.lang.EDINBURGH nor comp.lang.OKEEFE.  [I have greatly
  benefited from Richard O'Keefe's many contributions to this
  newsgroup and I know that he is a nice guy in person, but his
  writing style is often brutally abrasive.  This may not bother
  him or me but it does bother some people.  I want people to be
  unafraid of contributing even if they are not as eloquent or
  (gasp!) correct as Richard.]

- Specific deficiencies in WG17's draft should be criticised in a
  professional manner, with the intent of improving the Standard,
  not with the intent of proving how correct one was in 1984
  and how stupid the Draft Standard's authors are.

  Each deficiency should be presented in one article, with
  criticisms and suggested remedies.  Please don't discuss a
  bunch of problems in one article -- it might be fun for the
  writer to talk about everything at once, but it's hard on the
  readers.

- Avoid meta-discussions and editorial snide remarks:

  - We can't change ISO's structure.

  - 2500 years of philosophers haven't produced a universally
    acceptable definition of "democrarcy".

  - Don't presume someone from Company X is proposing something
    for some devious business reason -- Company X might have
    much more integrity than you had thought.

  - Some compromises are inevitable.  Parts of Edinburgh Prolog's
    design seem (to me) to have been dreamed up at 2 a.m. during an
    all-night hacking session.  But if the majority thinks that
    these decisions are best, then I shall give in with good grace.

    In most cases, a bad decision is better than no decision
    (and, possibly, no Standard).

  - Before blasting someone in public, why not send a private note?
    I know that this may be difficult (e.g., my e-mail system has so
    far refused all my attempts to send to OZ.AU).

  - Some things can't be resolved in this newsgroup.  That's why the
    standardisation committee has meetings.

  - Re-read the Usenet style guidelines from time to time.
    I especially like the advice:
        Before you post an article, think a minute; decide whether
        or not you are upset, angry, or [intoxicated].  If you are,
        wait until you calm down (or [become sober]) before deciding
        to post something.  Then think about whether or not you really
        want to post it.  You will be amazed what waiting a day or
        even a few hours can do for your perspective.

-----

Hoping for a speedy resolution of the Prolog Standard,

- Peter Ludemann      pgl@cup.portal.com
                      ...!sun!portal!cup!pgl

   --- my opinions are my sole responsibility, of course   ---

	Direct all flames to me, not to the newsgroup.