RE: y2k in netscape 4.08

At 07:57 AM 1/6/00 -0500, Shaun L. Sides wrote:
>It doesn't seem like an anti-Microsoft issue so much as it is a pro-
>standards issue.

I agree on this one.

>When there is a group of let's just say six programming languages,
>and five of them implement a function the same way, but one of
>them decides to do it in a different way, who is wrong?

I think this is actually subtly different.  I think the real problem set is 
more like so.  If there are six programming languages, and all six define 
and implement a function in a certain way, and another company decides to 
reimplement the function in a different, not according to the definition of 
the language way, who is wrong?

>I guess what most folks are saying is that, to a really large number
>of programmers (ADA, C, C++, Java, Perl, shell, and so on), the
>year IS $t[5] + 1900 (or something very similar).

I agree with this as well.  I guess I just have a problem with people 
implementing a language in a way that goes against the language definition, 
and saying that they implemented the language.  How non-compliant do you 
have to be before you have to start calling it something else?

-JEV
--
John Erjavec V ## sig(at)jevonline.com ## 
http://www.jevonline.com/jev/index.html
"I'll say it again for the logic impaired."  --Larry Wall

HWG: hwg-languages mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA