On Jan 10, 8:00 am, "Andrew Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually Date Masking worked a treat in C+/C++....
Date masking is not i18n. (let me guess you are changing the subject *again*) > And as thats all the function does Geoff, I am amazed you took the > time to even try to debate it. Once again there is no debate. Your form of argument involves changing your subject every post. Fact: cf5 byte code is not cf8 byte code. Analysing cf8 java output and making assumptions about engineering decisions made years earlier in a completely different language is idiotic. > Look at the end of the day pressure of a release is high, but > implementation is not. You casually imply the CF dev team are morons, and that there decisions are more about release pressure than good development. Although they're certainly not infallible, they have created a product of enormous value and lasting appeal. You cast aspersions with the flimsiest of excuses -- its an ugly habit. You're persistent "i'm more intelligent than thou" approach to forum posts annoys everyone. You have what the Methuselah amongst us would recognise as a "Liotta Complex". The only difference being Liotta was nearly always right, whereas you are invariably arguing a point most of us no longer recognise. Perhaps I'm being too kind. -- geoff http://www.daemon.com.au/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
