RE: y2k in netscape 4.08
by John Erjavec V <jev(at)pconline.com>
|
Date: |
Thu, 06 Jan 2000 08:10:35 -0600 |
To: |
"Shaun L. Sides" <arch(at)abts.net>, hwg-languages(at)hwg.org |
References: |
network |
|
todo: View
Thread,
Original
|
|
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