At 05:32 04-01-00 , Andrew Browne wrote:
>In netscape 4.08 the following JavaScript occurs:

>However, in IE5:

>Therefore, on my page I need to check for returned 
>dates of less than 2000 and add 1900 only to those.  
>Can anyone tell me why this discrepancy exists?

The short answer is that such is how they work.

There is a common joke about electronic devices being designed to fail just
days after the end of the warranty period. JavaScript by its very design
was not Y2K compliant, and when Microsoft implemented their JScript in a
different manner they essentially drove the nails into the coffin.

This isn't a new story, by any means... several years ago I recall an
article, I think it was in Dr. Dobbs (http://www.ddj.com) that showed
similar and even more dismal examples than what you present.

Your example would suggest that the real Mozilla folks used the traditional
(C language time structure) definition of year (as number of years since
1900). And that the Mozilla impostors [0] deliberately used a quite
different definition (the year itself) creates considerable confusion. As
you astutely point out.

Sure, returning the number of the year arguably is ~better~ than the
conventional way of doing things. Similarly, 7 is a clumsy number, and was
renaming the days of the week to a cycle of five colors is much ~better~.
Neither hardly simplified life, as it turns out.

But why Microsoft chose to do it differently is probably a rhetorical
question. A familiar question, perhaps, but largely rhetorical.

Ain't technology bitchin!  /Harold

ps. Personally, if one chooses to check the value returned, I'd suggest
displaying a "BROWSER MALFUNCTION" icon when the year (since 1900) value is
greater than say a few hundred years. 
====================
[0] If there is any ethical difference, it sure escapes me, between people
sending email messages forging someone else's name (such as claiming to be
Bill Gates) and of companies forging the name of someone else's product
(such as Microsoft falsely identifying M$-IE as "Mozilla", the product name
used for what became known as Netscape.) 

Bill Gates' criticism of those who forge his name (such as in email) are
well stated, and certainly should generalize (with similar contempt) to the
practices of his own company.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Harold A. Driscoll                 mailto:Harold(at)Driscoll.Chi.IL.US
#include <std/disclaimer>                 http://Driscoll.Chi.IL.US

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