Does the move of C# to ISO really make a difference to programmers, or is it just a sign of continuing intense competition in the software tools market? When Gavin Clark, of the news agency ComputerWire, heard that Microsoft plans greater adherence to ISO/ANSI standards in the upcoming release of Visual Studio.NET (codenamed "Everett" and due in the first quarter of 2003), he was quick to investigate the story by consulting with various Internet gurus-including Sun's Simon Phipps. In today's JDJ Industry Newsletter, Phipps sets the record straight a little, feeling that he was somewhat misrepresented in Clark's final account. We stress that he is writing in his personal capacity.

(October 25, 2002) - I'm quoted by Gavin Clark of ComputerWire in his item (syndicated by The Register) about the standardization of Microsoft's C# programming language and their moves to make their C++ compiler catch up with the standards a little. My remarks there were a little truncated and consequently unclear, so I'd like to elaborate a little.

My observation was that programmers don't typically use languages to create software. They use programming languages to weave together library calls to create software. Consequently, a programmer's marketable expertise is actually in their skill with the libraries they use to create software-the programming language with which they do so is relatively unimportant. Programmers seeking to build with the Java class libraries can use the Java language, or Jython, or NetRexx, or indeed any of the 160 systems that target the Java virtual machine. Programmers using the UNIX libraries have a similar choice; programmers using Microsoft's MFC libraries a smaller set of choices; those using Microsoft's new .NET framework a similarly small set. Of course, in typical form, projecting weaknesses and engaging in doubletalk, the small range of choice is portrayed as a large one...

So what does language standardization buy us? Well, it means that we will have a basic familiarity with the programming languages we find variously implemented. But beyond that, I would suggest it doesn't buy us much. What brings value is library stability. The Java environment achieves this by the oversight of a very good standards body, the Java Community Process. UNIX achieves it via the Open Group. But what about Microsoft? Their libraries come with no promise of stability as no one but them gets a vote. Indeed, their switch from MFC to .NET Framework is probably the reason for their new-found interest in language standards. Talking about "language choice" and "language standards" is all fine rhetoric, but what programmers really need is library stability. Perhaps it's embarrassment over that which is creating the new language fervor in Redmond, to blow a smokescreen over the retraining VB and C++ programmers are facing?