Gerry Danen wrote in a message to Robby Dittmann:
GD> Typical amateur response... It's not the past that counts,
Ya know, Gerry, what with your previous retorhical question about "previous 
programming experience", and the above comment, it looks to me as if you 
trying to bulldoze other users with your own alleged experience.   I am 
assuming that you have been paid to code in the past, then? :)  This is a 
standard debate tactic; generally one utilized where you don't have a 
substantiative argument to hand; if you can't out-argue them, try to impress 
them with your own superior wisdom and/or expertise.
GD> So by your own admission, you're really not a year 2000
GD> expert, then? 
Oh, pa-lease!  And now we have to have y2K "EXPERTS"!?  It's very simple: if 
the program breaks at the turn of the century, it needs fixing.  Period.  Of 
course, folks disagree on just _when_ the turn of the century is, but that's 
another topic entirely... 
AND the biggest problem is not the software on micros, but on the big iron 
where 20 or 30 year old COBOL, et al, applications are still running.  No one 
ever expected them to be in use in the year 2000, so concerns about the date 
field were a non-issue.  So now we have to deal with mainframe (or mini, 
perhaps) systems that use 2-byte year fields that will most likely break 
after the turn of the century.  I still don't see how Maximus will break at 
that time.  From what I've seen Scott post, Maximus has the requisite 
flexibility to deal with the situation.
And, IF you are wondering, I've had experience in CP/M, MS-DOS, Windows (tho 
some debate the validity of terming that an OS ), and VMS; and have coded 
in IBM 370 Assembler, IBM mainframe Pascal, COBOL, Fortran, Fortran IV (aka 
Fortran77), MS Fortran-80 for the 8088, Turbo Pascal, 8086 Assembler, and 
about 5,000 dialects of BASIC.
--- timEd-B9
---------------