Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Linux kernel modules development in C++ | Date | Fri, 29 Sep 2000 16:57:17 +0200 |
| |
Marty Fouts wrote: > My own opinion is that no, the nominal cost of standards documents has > little to do with why programmers don't have complete and up to date > definitions of the language.
I can't change your opinion but I can tell you a fact: this is the reason that *I* do not have a copy of the standard. If I could just download it from a URL I would have done it long ago. Not that I can't afford it, it's just too much of a pain in the butt.
> Most of them, after all, are willing to pay > 3-4 times that much for tutorial or text books on the language, often more > than one. My opinion is that few C or C++ programmers actually possess > complete and up to date definitions of the language, because many of them > are unaware of or uninterested in the existence of such standards, because > they believe that the dielect of the language they are using on their > platform of choice is, for their purposes, the language, and so they believe > they only need the vendor reference for the language. Also, standards are > written in a peculiar style and dialect, and they require developing a > certain kind of reading skill to be useful.
I think you are wrong. No, that's too week. I *know* you are wrong. If there was no cost in getting the standard every last one of us would have it, the same way every last one of us has a copy of the kernel. Consider this: if Linux costed $18, most of us wouldn't be here. Charging a toll on the standard is just plain evil. If ansi needs money, let them get it some other way than by having a monopoly on this public information.
Gack.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |