|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bob:
Your possible explanation about early releases of TS ver 5.0 not being year 2000
compliant makes some sense, I guess...in a haphazard design sense [which I could
now imagine Omega using]. However, if it isn't that difficult for them to
'compartmentalize' their design and research products, it should be pretty darn
easy to take about 75 percent of their code staff and put them on finishing a
year 2000 patch right now. I mean, they no longer have to worry about releasing
version 5 on time...it was initially planned to be released last quarter at the
latest.
Best,
Tim Morge [Patiently collecting old shopping bags to hand chart on after year
2000]
Bob Fulks wrote:
>
> At 3:39 PM -0400 7/16/98, Chris Norrie wrote:
>
> >The only conclusion I can draw is that TS5.0 is not a true next generation
> >ground up design. It is built from a TS4 base that is 16-bit and also non-y2k
> >compliant. Maybe I'm wrong but its the only explanation I know of that makes
> >sense.
>
> I do not have the TS 5.0 beta and don't know how they designed it but there
> is a possible explanation why initial beta releases of 5.0 might not be Y2K
> compliant, even if the application is.
>
> There is a lot of parts to the TS package and they might not have had all
> of the subroutine libraries rewritten initially. For example, they might
> have used the old 4.0 EasyLanguage function library as part of the initial
> 5.0 releases. Then, when they had time, they could go back through the
> libraries and check them all for Y2K compliance, making changes where
> necessary. Similarly with routines that interface the server to the data
> feed, etc.
>
> Good software architectural design often keeps the interfaces between
> modules stable so this is possible since you have to bootstrap your way up
> while testing the new code. It is much safer to replace modules a few at a
> time while bringing up a new system, reusing existing modules as much as
> possible. This greatly simplifies testing the new modules since they are
> surrounded by modules known to work.
>
> Usually, by the time of beta, this process is complete but Omega seems to
> call code "beta" that I would have called "alpha".
>
> Just a possibility...
>
> Bob Fulks
|