From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,92471489ebbc99c6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Joel Seidman <joel_seidman.nospam@smtp.svl.trw.com>
Subject: Re: Y2K Issues
Date: 1998/10/26
Message-ID: <3635225A.41C67EA6@smtp.svl.trw.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 405401152
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <362B53A3.64E266AB@res.raytheon.com> <362B8D2F.802F42E6@lmco.com>
 <710nnc$jop@felix.seas.gwu.edu> <wccww5n0wzc.fsf@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: TRW, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff wrote:
> I also can't help but point out that two 8-bit quantities can of course
> store a year-range of 65,536 years, so something's wrong when somebody
> decides to use 16 bits to represent a 100-year range, because they're
> short on memory, and 32 bits is too costly.  That kind of decision
> sounds more "convenient" or "expedient" than "intentional".

Obviously if you really wanted to pack numbers you'd use BCD or binary.
I've always thought attributing the "saving memory" motivation that you
see in popular explanations is overly kind, a bit of a social lie.