Re: [boost] [any] new version

Subject: Re: [boost] [any] new version
From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-17 14:26:53

On 17/09/2011 17:45, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>
> Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> [...]
>> simple really. ECMA is commercial organization . . .
>
> Full stop right here.

is anything else I wrote incorrect?

B.

On 17/09/2011 17:10, Bronek Kozicki wrote:
... with high membership fees
> (which explains why they can afford to give away standards). Its role is
> mostly rubber-stamping standards agreed internally by the member(s) and
> so the quality varies by a large degree. The are no panels of technical
> experts, the process is only as open as convenient to member
> organizations and takes no, or very little, external input. You probably
> wouldn't be able to contribute to ECMA work in any manner if not
> employed by a member organization. Due to fees involved few small
> organizations are involved in ECMA.
>
> ISO is international organization whose members are national
> standarization bodies, membership fees (if any) are smaller than in ECMA
> and quality of standards is uniformly higher. It is possible for both
> individuals and small organizations to contribute to ISO work. Of course
> it may look differently in different countries, depending on bureaucracy
> surrounding any particular national standarization body, but in general
> the process is open and works. Few bother to actually contribute to ISO
> (majority just whine), but some do and their work is not ignored.
>
> Having said that, I agree the price for a copy of C++ 2011 standard is
> much too high and was happy to learn it's going to be much lower by
> 2012. If you don't want to buy it from American standarization body, go
> to your national one and ask if you can contribute to work of ISO/IEC
> committee JTC1/SC22/WG21 - technical experts have free access to
> relevant ISO documents, including copy of standard.