Subject: Re: DASC Scope
From: John Michael Williams (jwill@astragate.net)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 13:28:45 PST
Hi All.
Evan Lavelle wrote:
> Just on the issue of taking everything and letting the market decide:
>
> Brophy, Dennis wrote:
>
>> The DASC could do the same and allow any and all comers to standardize
>> and leave to the market those standards they wish to use.
>
>
> The IEEE does have a history of allowing manufacturers to open their
> languages (and bus interfaces, and whatever) by taking them on as IEEE
> standards. But what about languages which are already open? The two
> obvious cases are SystemVerilog and SystemC. Does it promote the ends of
> the IEEE to take on the extra work required to turn an existing
> "standard" into an IEEE "standard"?
In my opinion, no. If the open standard already works
well, then inviting a lot of diverse IEEE opinions to
ballot on it probably will just add entropy.
Preemptive standardization, with no preexisting dispute,
doesn't advance anything.
IEEE standardization should be to resolve possible
engineering disputes or differences of opinion, not
just to consume working or balloting time to author
new stuff in the name of IEEE.
If several variants of SystemC or SystemVerilog
evolved (literally), and differences created
incompatibilities, then IEEE should consider resolving
such differences by publishing a standard.
...
--
John
jwill@AstraGate.net
John Michael Williams
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 13:27:36 PST