|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Carroll:
I certainly couldn't add anything to this lucid statement, Carroll. I only wish
Omega had your insight and felt as responsible about its designs as you do
towards yours.
Best,
Tim Morge [Still collecting paper bags for hand charting after year 2000]
Carroll Slemaker wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
>
> > It is not a bug. It is simply the way all software reads dates.
>
> Sorry Peter - it IS a bug. Note that there are two types of bugs:
> implementation bugs (where the software fails to do what the designer
> intended), and design bugs (where the designer's algorithm or intended
> solution is defective). The Y2K problem is the latter type. Also, it
> is NOT true that "all software reads dates" this way. All programs I
> have written store dates as pseudo-Julian dates. So although early
> programs did read input years as two digits, it was VERY simple to
> modify the read statements to read four digits - NO change was required
> to databases nor to other programs reading those databases.
>
> Secondly, I feel that your priorities are wrong in stating that "Most
> unwise when making major changes to do more than one thing at a time.
> Better to do all the changes for TS5.0 and then go back and make all the
> changes for the Y2K fix."
>
> This is an example of "featuritis", the tendency to place much greater
> emphasis upon adding new bells and whistles rather than getting what
> already exists to work reliably and robustly. Unfortunately, featuritis
> is a disease which infects most software vendors because unsophisticated
> buyers are dazzled by all the advertising claims for the sexy new
> "features".
>
> Regards,
>
> Carroll S.
|