what's wrong with the firefox programmers?

[TwistedMac]

right, so there I sit, innocently using my firefox 0.9, and i'm alerted *yo, dude.. new version of firefox out*

neat-o thinks me.. what goodies are there in stock for me this time?

I was shocked!...

the new version is version 0.10... 0.10! i'll give you a moment to grasp the logic behind upgrading 0.9 to 0.10...

...

...

...

right, enough grasping... IT DOESN'T WORK THIS WAY!!! my maths teacher from 6th grade would choke these guys with her bare wrinkled hands!

edit: post 999 was sometime today.. i'll just count this one as it even if it's a chit chat thread.. 999 the ultimate evil

Edit 2: okok, I overreacted... turns out it was just my webcounter that showed the visitors using "firefox v0.10"... apparently the thing is called "1.0PR"

sorry 'bout that

 

[yimija]

always so twisted, still, mack !!!!!
just passing by to say hello

 

[Lina Inverse]

Yeah, apparently some of the Firefox programmers are thorougly retarded, going from 0.9 (which is the same as 0.90) back to 0.10
While the setup is correctly named 1.0PR, the wrong version number is still displayed in the user string (you can see it under Help->About).

always so twisted, still, mack !!!!!
just passing by to say hello

Hi yimija! wb!
Staying longer this time?

 

[bossel]

Yeah, apparently some of the Firefox programmers are thorougly retarded, going from 0.9 (which is the same as 0.90) back to 0.10
While the setup is correctly named 1.0PR, the wrong version number is still displayed in the user string (you can see it under Help->About).

That would be right if they would do mathematics, but they don't. Else a version 0.9.3 wouldn't make much sense either.

 

[thomas]

Firefox is still in BETA phase, hence PR (Preview Release). As long as it is in beta version counting starts with 0 (zero). Thus, after version 0.9, there will be 0.10, 0.11, 0.12 until the Gold release. Common habit among programers.



Btw,has anyone else experienced glitches with 0.10?

 

[TwistedMac]

can't say i have... works like a charm here

must say i never made a 0.10 as an upgrade to a 0.9 program... always left myself tons of room by having 0.001 release as the first =P gave up programming 2 years ago or so haven't missed it even for a sec. stressfull work it is.

That would be right if they would do mathematics, but they don't. Else a version 0.9.3 wouldn't make much sense either.

that still has better mathematic logic than 0.10 though. bigger than 0.9.9 would be 1.0.0, right? the dots just work as seperators and the number is carried to the next level when it goes over 9.

 

[Lina Inverse]

Firefox is still in BETA phase, hence PR (Preview Release). As long as it is in beta version counting starts with 0 (zero). Thus, after version 0.9, there will be 0.10, 0.11, 0.12 until the Gold release. Common habit among programers.

That doesn't change anything in that going from 0.90 back to 0.10 makes absolutely no sense
If they would've wanted to go to 0.10, they would've needed to name the previous versions 0.01, 0.02, 0.03 ... 0.09 and then 0.10 would be no problem.
However, from 0.9 you can only got to 0.91, 0.92, 0.93 etc. or straight to 1.0 - which they already did in calling it "1.0PR". It's just some guys there who are stuck up and don't get it, so they put a 0.10 in there.

Btw,has anyone else experienced glitches with 0.10?

I've never used 0.1(0) but started right with 0.7, so I can't talk about that
With 1.0PR however, I noticed that the Java chat doesn't work anymore
It says in a line at the top to click there to dowload the suitable plugin (but I already have Java 1.50 installed?). Then it tells me it is looking for plugins and shortly thereafter tells me it couldn't find any ☝

 

[thomas]

That doesn't change anything in that going from 0.90 back to 0.10 makes absolutely no sense.

You are right, mathematically it makes no sense. However, zero-point-nine is being followed by zero-point-ten, zero-point-eleven and so forth. Jelsoft, the company behind vBulletin used to count their release versions the same way.

So I assume they call the official Firefox version 0.10 which also happens to be 1.0PR.

With 1.0PR however, I noticed that the Java chat doesn't work anymore. It says in a line at the top to click there to dowload the suitable plugin (but I already have Java 1.50 installed?). Then it tells me it is looking for plugins and shortly thereafter tells me it couldn't find any.

Haven't noticed that yet (but I am not hanging out in chats a lot, lolol). I experienced problems when typing in text fields. I have to force spaces, also text fields are stretched outside HTML tables.
:?

 

[bossel]

that still has better mathematic logic than 0.10 though. bigger than 0.9.9 would be 1.0.0, right? the dots just work as seperators and the number is carried to the next level when it goes over 9.

True, but as I said they're not doing mathematics. I would see the problem, if they used 0.91, 0.92 a.s.o., but they chose another system.

Actually, what Thomas said makes perfect sense. It is both version 0.10 of the Beta phase, & at the same time it is the preview release of version 1.0.


Edit: Ooomph, another one was quicker again. I should write faster. But I let it stand, anyway.

 

[Mike Cash]

It beats the version naming practice of the person/team who created a combination database / file management program I use. It's version names are taken from ancient video games. For example "Frogger" and "Defender". Those aren't the program names....but version names. If the program weren't an absolute lifesaver for me, I'd like to reach through the net and slap whoever came up with that.

 

[PaulTB]

It beats the version naming practice of the person/team who created a combination database / file management program I use. It's version names are taken from ancient video games. For example "Frogger" and "Defender". Those aren't the program names....but version names. If the program weren't an absolute lifesaver for me, I'd like to reach through the net and slap whoever came up with that.

On a related note a certain programmer assured himself job stability by using the names of cartoon characters for every single variable in some big project. It all worked just fine - but when they needed to maintain it after he left ...

 

[TwistedMac]

On a related note a certain programmer assured himself job stability by using the names of cartoon characters for every single variable in some big project. It all worked just fine - but when they needed to maintain it after he left ...

oh my god... just imagine being the programmer they hire to take up where he left off

"you're supposed to work with this stuff... doesn't make much sense to us, but to you programmers it does, right?"

"what the... "

and they don't get it either

"I can't work with this, all the variables are cartoon characters!"

"we don't care as long as it works"

"that's not what i meant.."

 

[Keiichi]

It'll be even funny if you use Barbie related names.
(Note: I don't know anything about Barbie, all names were googled for )

// ---- Let's start the program!
function init(length) {
    Ken.set(0) = Barbie.insert(length);  // let's go!
    boolean Tom_interrupt = Ken.set(0).completed(0) ?  0 : 1;  // c'mon Ken!
    if (Tom_interrupt) {  // c'mon down, Tommy!
        int push = 0;  // from the start!
        while (push < 24674) {  // set constant of oscillations
            Tommy.in(Barbie);  // ooooooohhh
            Tommy.out(Barbie);  // aaaaaahh
            push++;    // uuuuuuhhhhh
        }
    }
    return system_satisfied ? true : false;
}

Keiichi

 

[Lina Inverse]

It'll be even funny if you use Barbie related names.
(Note: I don't know anything about Barbie, all names were googled for )

Suuuure... I bet you have a huge Barbie collection in your closet!

 

[RockLee]

lolmao...that's the otaku programmer's secret code ;-)

 

[rakuten]

What Thomas said is absolutely correct. This is a convention among programmers. As software under development goes through quite a lot of stages (of which some are unforseen), it would be troublesome if the digits had a fixed length.

Let's say you plan the releases v0.1, v0.2, v0.3,...,v0.8, v0.9 - and then for some reason there are minor bugfixes etc. and release 1.0 is still far from ready. You'd run out of numbers! You'd have to know in advance how many releases there will be, and therefore predefine a fixed digit length for the release numbers. The first release would be v0.001 or v0.0001 - which makes absolutely no sense.

Plans can change, and the bigger they are the more likely they will. Upcoming releases are numbered depending on how much they differ from the previous ones. This is where the dot comes in as a separator for the different levels of change, i.e. v5.3.12

And the "bigger than 0.9.9 would be 1.0.0" method is a nice thought, but it wouldn't be very convenient.

Just adding +0.1 after v0.9 would result in v0.9.1, but then the 2nd dot doesn't indicate a sub-subrelease - as in contrary to the 1st dot.
Furthermore, what if your release is v4.40.12 ? - how would you write this with the "bigger than 0.9.9 would be 1.0.0" method? It would look like this: v4.9.9.9.9.9.7

So the release numbering is logical, just not in the mathematical sense of arithmetic operation.

rakuten

 

[Keiichi]

Also, different programmers/groups would have different conventions. I think the most common is the basic three parts; eg. v1.2.3
The first digit (1) indicates the software version. Generally, if this changes, the software had practically started from scratch again or had a massive change.
The second digit (2) indicates an upgrade due to something such as security issues or a major bug.
The third digit (3) usually indicates a very minor bug fix.
For all of them, the digits doesn't necessarily end at 9, so something like: v3.12.3556
is valid and easy to read. Though if there were 3556 minor bug fixes, there's seriously something wrong with the software, so most of the time you don't see numbers go this high, as the software would probably need to be redone.

Keiichi

 

[rakuten]

LOL the Barbie function was great Keiichi, but the "3356 bugfix" tops the charts! HAHA!!!

I wonder what the highest internal revision number of Win98 was... v98.654197987446.987465498454E+666 ???

The developers of ZoneAlarm clearly use a different system, I doubt there were that many bugfixes...
ZoneAlarm Pro 3.1.395
ZoneAlarm Pro v3.7.159
ZoneAlarm Pro 3.5.147
ZoneAlarm v2.6.362
ZoneAlarm Pro Web filtering 4.0.123.012

 

[Lina Inverse]

Ok, let's take a look at how it's officially defined. Just take any random application or dll, e.g. the Fiefox 1.0PR installer, as we're just talking of it: "Firefox Setup 1.0PR.exe". Right-click on the file, select "Properties" and then the "Version" tab. Here you'll find the file version. If you've got WinXP, you just need to hover the mouse over the file to get the file version displayed:

File version: 3.12.0.0

It's always four numbers.
- The first is named "Major version". A change here indicates a significant change of the program, with lots of features added/changed and possibly many bugfixes.
- The second is named "Minor version" (normally two digits). This indicates still a good amount of changes in the way of features, but nothing too extraordinary.
- The third is named "Build". This signifies the current build of the actual version. Only minor feature changes and bugfixes.
- The fourth is named "Revision". This is the revision of the actual build. Normally only used for minor bugfixes, without any features changed.

It is not uncommon to go from 0.9 to 0.91 (or from 1.1 to 1.11 or similar), actually you'll find this quite commonly used, normally if it was initially intended to stick with one digit, but then the need for a second digit arouse. So, instead of confusing the costumer with some insane version numbering by going back to 0.1 again from 0.9, the additional digit is just appended, which makes much more sense.

 

[Keiichi]

The developers of ZoneAlarm clearly use a different system, I doubt there were that many bugfixes...
ZoneAlarm Pro 3.1.395
ZoneAlarm Pro v3.7.159
ZoneAlarm Pro 3.5.147
ZoneAlarm v2.6.362
ZoneAlarm Pro Web filtering 4.0.123.012

Whoops. I was mostly talking about Web programming that takes on the format I previously mentioned. But yeah, I guess depending on the type of software it would differ. As Lina showed, it looks like that the ZoneAlarm one could consider the build number also (which probably increases by one for each day it's worked on).

Keiichi