ISO defines standards for much more than bolts and plugs. A few examples include: the C++ ISO standard, IT security standards and workplace safety standards, and that’s a small subset of what they do.

They develop a well defined standard, not the technologies mentioned in the standard. So yes, they’re qualified.

▲

usamoi a day ago | parent | next [-]

But isn't RISC-V just a standard? ISO will decide what is RISC-V and what isn't. Then its complicated process will become an obstacle to innovation.

▲

tester756 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

C++ "standard" sounds more like an example of why technology should avoid standards

▲

tialaramex a day ago | parent | next [-]

It is certainly an example of why SC22 is a bad idea

The "C++ Standards Committee" is Working Group #21 of Sub Committee #22, of the Joint Technical Committee #1 between ISO and the IEC.

It is completely the wrong shape of organization for this work, a large unwieldy bureaucracy created so that sovereign entities could somehow agree things, this works pretty well for ISO 216 (the A-series paper sizes) and while it isn't very productive for something like ISO 26262 (safety) it can't do much harm. For the deeply technical work of a programming language it's hopeless.

The IETF shows a much better way to develop standards for technology.

▲

jcranmer 21 hours ago | parent [-]

The fact that the C++ committee is technically a subgroup of a subgroup of a subgroup is among the least of the issues of ISO for standardization.

The main problem is that ISO is a net negative value-add for standardization. At one point, the ISO editor came back and said "you need to change the standard because you used periods instead of commas for the decimal point, a violation of ISO rules." Small wonder there's muttering about taking C and C++ out of ISO.

	▲	tialaramex 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I would argue that the structural problem is an underlying cause. So it won't be the proximate cause, but when you dig deeper, when you keep asking like a five year old, "But why?" the answer is ultimately ISO's structure and nothing to do with Bjarne's language in particular. Hence the concern for the non-language but still deeply technical RISC-V standardization.

▲

112233 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Titanic is not an example of why building ships has to be avoided. C++ is a great example, yes, of the damage ambitious and egotistical personas can inflict when cooperation is necessary.

	▲	a day ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

usrnm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Say what you will about C++, but it is undoubtedly one of the most successful and influential programming languages in history.

	▲	high_na_euv a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		By which metric? C, Java, Rust, JS, C# do exist
	▲	nutjob2 18 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> influential It's certainly a cautionary tale

▲

actionfromafar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

If we are taking cheap potshots, there's a standard for standards: https://xkcd.com/927/ or in the proposed XKCD URI form xkcd://927