JTK wrote:
>
> DeMoN LaG wrote:
> >
> > JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 23 Dec 2001:
> >
> > > Not quite a Mozilla question, but no, I've never seen anything like
> > > that, and I download all kinds of crazy (and way-too-big) crappola.
> > > What I do see quite often is both IE and Mozilla crapping out
> > > during such a long download, especially over HTTP. Neither
> > > development team apparently has ever heard about the fact that
> > > Zmodem back in the Paleozoic Era could recover interrupted
> > > downloads, and all semi-modern FTP servers (don't know about HTTP)
> > > support resuming as well. Guess "append" is just too advanced a
> > > concept in this Visual Basic / Java /
> > > dumb-it-down-seven-shades-to-tuesday world we live in.
> > >
> >
> > A) It is well documented that IE has problems downloading large files.
> > I seem to recall Netscape's own webpage at one point saying "You may
> > have to download an earlier version of Netscape, and then download
> > Communicator 4.x", because IE would bomb before the whole thing was done
> >
>
> Huh, never heard that one. But I did just read this when downloading
> 4.79:
>
> "Smart Update may not work properly on Windows 2000 and Windows XP when
> upgrading from Communicator 4.78. We recommend that you use the base
> install or complete install instead of Smart Update. The base and
> complete installs are available at
> ftp://ftp.netscape.com/pub/communicator/english/4.79/windows/windows95_or_nt/.";
> -
> http://home.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/4.7/relnotes/windows-4.79.html?cp=dowrel
>
> Well you can't really blame 'em I suppose. It must be pretty hard to
> pump all those ads at you while simultaneously attempting to do
> something halfway worthwhile.
>
> Oh, and does anybody else find it odd that AOL is *still* maintaining
> the 4.7x series, all these years after Netscape 6.0 was released? Hmmm,
> I wonder if they know something many here won't admit?
Not at all. AOL is not maintaining the 4.xx series if you get down to
brass tacks. I know who is and why but that is a different rat hole and
you are definitely fond of rat holes. I will tidy the rug over it.
> > B) Mozilla is C/C++, JS, and XUL. No VB or Java necessary
> >
>
> I was commenting on the sorry state of development in general. Kids
> today, etc.
I think you are being a little silly with this. People use tools that
target their product space. VB is perfectly fine if your users are
purely Windows users. In the real world, it is necessary to use a range
of tools and young software engineers are as prepared for that as I am
and I have been messing with this stuff for 30 years. Heck, I was
introduced to high level languages with FORTH and FORTRAN (at the same
time - talk about confusion). The young people I meet can deal with the
tools. You should handle my phone calls. My code is open to customers
and they read the garbage. Moreover, they ask darned good questions
about it. They understand it line by line even though it is in an
obscure assembly language and I have never been accused of commenting
too much (I rarely comment except when I am pissed at the chip
designers). The customers look like teenagers to me. They understand my
code as well as I do. The place where they have trouble is the physics
of what my code does.
I'm a motion control engineer. I give the young software engineers my
patented 5 minute tutorial on Newtons Laws and they are up to speed.
Don't push this garbage about the young engineers being ill trained. It
is the same today as it was 40 years ago when I did my first gig. Ya
learn what you can in school and ya keep on learning if you want to
survive.
The kids know all of this and I haven't the slightest problem working
with the young engineers.
Chuck
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
