Hello and welcome to our community! Is this your first visit?
Register
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    On Standards vs. Implementations

    It seems to be a reality that's surfaced (more often than not, in what few areas I've researched), that a standard (for a programming language, or...) exists; yet, a fully-compliant implementation of this standard is nowhere to be found.

    What really gets me is the apparent paradox: how can anyone finalize a standard, without having first implemented it, themselves?
    Last edited by neofibril; 07-27-2004 at 06:00 PM. Reason: punctual
    Modesty is often lacking in our transactions.

  • #2
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    How can one implement a standard before it has been finalized, and be sure that it will be fully compliant in the future?

    How's that for a paradox?

    shmoove

  • #3
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Also don't forget, while a standard is a concept, and implementation is a real thing, and so it's likely it will have bugs that will keep it from completely complying with the future.

    shmoove

  • #4
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Well, that's the thing...

    How can a solid concept (specification) be qualified, and made "the standard", without a working model first existing?
    Modesty is often lacking in our transactions.

  • #5
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    It's like building a large piece of software: there's the design phase where the entire system is built on paper. Even the test cases are built. Then all that's left is to code it and test it using the test cases.

    Standards are sort of like this.

    Sadiq.

  • #6
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    If not bug-free, what are standards? What is to be expected from compliance, then? Pardon my ignorance, but unproven standards seem unworthy of their formal status.
    Modesty is often lacking in our transactions.

  • #7
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    They don't make a standard overnight, it can take months or years to finalize.

    Further, a standard doesn't tell an implementer HOW to implement it, the standard merely says WHAT should happen. Standards are written as unambiguously as possible so that the implementer knows WHAT should be happening, then it is up to the implementer as to HOW to make this happen.

    Therefore, you can't have a bug in the WHAT, but you can in the HOW.

    Sadiq.

  • #8
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    There again, I must wonder how it can be determined what should occur, unless it has been proven both possible, and reliable (by having been accomplished), beforehand.
    Modesty is often lacking in our transactions.

  • #9
    Senior Coder
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,206
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Ok, why don't you think of an example Standard that you'd like to discuss. Maybe we can help you understand this better by way of example.

    Sadiq.

  • #10
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    367
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by neofibril
    There again, I must wonder how it can be determined what should occur, unless it has been proven both possible, and reliable (by having been accomplished), beforehand.
    Noone is to say that you can't test parts of the standard while it is being devised. But usually a complete implementation will not be finished before the standard.

    I think sadiq's design/implementation analogy says it best. The standard is what we need/want. Sort of a feature list. It is possible through common sense to know if the requirements are realistic. That's the way all the software industry works.

    shmoove

  • #11
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    As with almost everything else in the world, there are many ways to get desired results through different pathways. In computers, all commands are deciphered through boolean gates, more or less. So, with seemingly infinite pathways, many will inevitable end up in the same place. Boolean logic is a system created by man, and so far we can control it. A relatively simple system that we have created is html, css, and the browser readers. The browsers take the information given and decipher it to give a desired output. The reason that we can have "a solid concept (specification) be qualified, and made "the standard", without a working model first existing". We built the system. We know the system. We can therefore type up a series of steps that we believe to be the correct output.

    With todays commercialism, we have expanded out horizons to multiple browsers instead of just one. These browsers do not always decipher the same means as the same end. (Example: IE Box model versus Mozilla Box Model). The reason that we are creating standards is to try and make it easier for developers to code pages. What a br is supposed to be semanticly versus people using <p>&nbsp;</p> can arrive at the same end, but which means more in the code. When you type out your web pages, your are writing a book of directions. If I were to tell you "Take a left at the stop sign on 3rd", you would understand much easier than if I told you "The road goes up and it winds and then you turn this way after a while". The same goes for coding standards...there are many ways to say the same thing, but since we have built and understand this world, we not only can create a standard for it, but we can also alter the world by changing how browsers decipher certain things.

    Bottom line: Not a paradox, but our system of rules that we can change. This is not chemistry where we are trying to understand a system around us, but instead it is us creating a system that we may alter at anytime to give a desired result.
    Thoughts determine what you want,
    Actions determine what you get.

  • #12
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    512
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Thoughts determine what you want,
    Actions determine what you get.

  • #13
    Regular Coder
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    underground
    Posts
    186
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    No thanks; I've had enough.
    Modesty is often lacking in our transactions.


  •  

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •