Re: Objective-C standard

[Pascal Bourguignon]

Christopher Armstrong writes:
> I've been reading the discussion about Objective-C not being a standard, 
> and couldn't help thinking that perhaps there's another way of looking 
> at this. The advantages of not having a standard in this regard is that 
> we can "innovate" with regards to the language i.e. we are not bound by 
> standards bodies to ensure that our compiler complies. Considering that 
> gcc is the de-facto standard, I would have thought that the GNU project 
> would only be limited  to the potential of it's developers in adding new 
> features, modifying the runtime (and it's design), etc. Not unlike 
> GNUstep already adds useful features to gnustep-base and gnustep-gui, 
> where they may not be found elsewhere. Although this sounds a bit much, 
> I don't think we should shy away from extending and modifying the 
> language where the community reaches a consensus that such changes are 
> useful.

There are a lot of programming languages in use today and very popular
that are not standard either: perl, php, ruby, python, etc.

Some other language have international standards, such as Common Lisp,
and are not as popular, even if still successful.

So this really doesn't matter.

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

This is a signature virus.  Add me to your signature and help me to live.