🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Michael,

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, Michael Hensche wrote:

> M)> Hi Michael,
> M)>
> M)> WHAT? Are you telling me that 1.25 is newer then 1.9?
>
> I am ;)
>

It shouldn't mean that.

> M)> If this is the case then there are more people doing the version numbers
> M)> wrong then are doing it right.
>
> Might be. I myself am not a programmer, but I followed a very long
> discussion in a german net about exactly this problem.
>

I think you should include the quoted text below to the German Net and see
what happens. To me, it make the point very clearly.

> Conclusion was, that the left number increases (or should, Microsoft does it
> its own way ;) with increased versions, lets say, new features.
> The right number increases with bugfixes or slight improvements.
>
> But each is a number on its own, being counted as in normal counting. That
> means, 90 is more than is 9.
>

It should mean that, .90 and .9 are the same version. Only whoever was
programming choose to leave the zero off of the end of the .9 for what
ever reason.

> M)> "Any company or programmer that knows anything about software production
> M)> realizes that if double digits are to be used to right of the decimal
> M)> point (and should be), then they must remain consistent through-out.  So
> M)> any product that has version 1.25 must use either version 1.09 or 1.90 to
> M)> avoid confusion".
>
> I do not know, where this cite might be from, but it states, that double
> digits should be used.

No it says that _IF_ double digits are to be used, then they must remain
consistent through-out.

> But, 09 ist equivalent to 9, so why use a leading zero?

It doesn't say to add a leading zero. The original post to the newsgroup
mention the different between .09 and .9, I'm only using the same numbers
as in the original post used. If anything it suggests to add a ending zero
if double digits are to be used to avoid confusion. Otherwise, .9 and .09
are the same.

> Amiga-Dos 3.1 will remain 3.1, why should one call it 3.01?
>

This is the confusion that would be avoided. It wouldn't be called 3.01,
it would be called 3.10. If and only if there was version numbers that
already use double digits. If there wasn't a ending zero at the end, then
it would be assumed that 3.1 and 3.10 are the same version.

> M)> "If a company or programmer is stupid enough to have inconsistently used
> M)> both a single digit and a double digit to the right of the decimal point,
> M)> then in this example, v1.9 would be considered v1.90 and thus newer than
> M)> v1.25".
>
> That does not become true, even if one might consist on your first one.
> Go and try to pay a 90 Dollar bill with a 9 dollar cheque :)
>

I think you are confused here. In the original post, the example was .09
and .9. With this in mind, and using your example, it would be paying a 90
cent bill with a .9 dollar check.

> M)> Michael (shotgun@slip.net)
>
> Regards
> Michael Hensche, Wuppertal
>
>

Hope this helps,

Michael (shotgun@slip.net)

Founding member of S.A.D. (Slipnet A Disappointment)

Now with new members!!