
Ruby has an ISO standard now - pjmlp
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=59579
======
stcredzero
The question I have, is how good a standard is it? Sometimes language
standards are put together in a political way, so all the vendors can say they
comply, and the standard has no teeth and no effect on portability.

Since there aren't many players in the Ruby language space, this is probably
not an issue, and it's all down to how good a job the standard writers do.
(Basically, I understand it's basically only matz who determines what is and
isn't Ruby.)

What this should buy the community: protection from future
vendor/implementation fragmentation. (But only if it's a strong standard with
"teeth.")

~~~
tptacek
Aren't there anomalously MANY players in the Ruby language space?

* The super-important MRI/YARV team

* The mruby team

* The super-important MacRuby team

* The IronRuby team, to the extent it still exists

* The super-important JRuby team

* The super-important Rubinius team

Other languages also have multiple implementations, but they aren't really in
viable competition with each other like they are in Ruby (a good thing for
Ruby).

~~~
mbell
I don't know about that.

Jython vs CPython vs PyPy vs Stackless Python vs IronPython

HotSpot vs OpenJDK vs Dalvik vs GNU Classpath (libraries only) vs Jazelle VM,
etc

There is some argument as to which feedback into the language and which are
"pure" implementations but I think the point still holds, many languages are
pulled in many directions by either their runtime or their compiler.

~~~
whateverer
But isn't Jython years behind the CPython version, PyPy still experimental and
on Python 2.x, and IronPython mostly a novelty? Stackless seems in better
shape, though, and couldn't say anything in respect to usage.

The argument for Java is clearer and it's a well known case of the interaction
of multiple implementors, and thus it has an standardization process.

~~~
mbell
I would say that CPython, PyPy and Stackless are in pretty strong competition
in different areas. PyPy only supporting 2.x seems to be a relatively
unimportant metric given the slow adoption of 3.x. As for it being
experimental, perhaps technically but I do believe its used in production in
many places. From what I know Stackless gets a large portion of its support
from CCP games due to its use in Eve Online. I'm sure there are others but its
use case is relatively unique.

~~~
stcredzero
In the grand scheme of things, the differences between CPython and PyPy are
minor. Stackless is a special case. Relatively Python has very little language
fragmentation. It has more of what I'd call "implementation fragmentation,"
but not too much of that either.

------
lukeholder
question: Why does getting a copy of an ISO doc cost money?

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
To cover the operating costs, pay their employees, etc. If they gave them away
free they'd need sponsors I guess.

So it's probably to maintain neutrality.

~~~
dchest
They are funded by member organizations.

~~~
pmr_
That is not entirely true. ISO itself is funded by the member bodies (the
national subgroups so to say), member organizations and selling standards.
This gives the concrete figures for 2011 [1] on page 2.

[1] <http://www.iso.org/iso/about/iso_in_figures.htm>

~~~
dchest
Well, of course, they make money by selling standards, since they _sell_ them.

From your link (2011):

    
    
        55 %	 through membership fees
        45 %	 through sales of publications and other income from services
    
        2010: 53/47
        2009: 55/45
        2008: 60/40
        ..
        2006: 62/38
        2005: 65/35
        ..
        2002: 80 % - financed directly
              20 % - member body subscriptions and publications income
    

I think they can operate without paid publications. They could, at least.

~~~
notJim
Am I reading your link right that they receive 45% of their revenue from
selling publications? I don't know many organizations that could stand losing
55% of their revenue.

------
jared314
What is the cost, time and money, of getting something ISO standardized?

~~~
justinjlynn
If you have to ask, it's probably too expensive.

------
viraptor
@developer9 -> Your comments seem to be dead on arrival, although I cannot
figure out why - your comments and submissions look ok to me. Not sure if HN
has a silent ban, but just thought you should know.

------
ksec
Why the heck are they making an Old, soon to be unused Ruby 1.8.3 as ISO
standard.

They should be thinking about 2.0 instead.

~~~
yuhong
Standardization takes time, and this is Ruby being standardized for the first
time.

------
kingkilr
It's a standard for 1.8.7, right?

