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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,577c9f9c0cdd76d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Marin Condic Subject: Re: Confusing language, was Re: Help help.. please.i am totaly new in ada programing Date: 1999/11/08 Message-ID: <38270DC7.86553BB1@pwfl.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 545991724 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: condicma@bogon.pwfl.com References: <7vqgs2$lcc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38233108.F3540F0@ebox.tninet.se> <806716$i6c2@ftp.kvaerner.com> <807109$8m0$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: Pratt & Whitney Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: condicma@pwflcom Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > Personally I find treating Y2K this way technically > unsupportable, but my technical views do not govern the law! > Y2K is not a bug. It is a feature. Y2K is simply caused by a design limitation that does not allow the software to work past 1999. This was a conscious choice to sacrifice useful life span in exchange for space efficiency. It would be no more a bug if someone were to state: "My Ada compiler correctly compiles any legal Ada program which is under 1000 lines in length." or "My spreadsheet software can do 100% correct integer math as long as the numbers are in the range -32768..32767." The software behaves exactly as it was designed to do, only within certain designed in limitations. I can see why Congress provided protection (aside from the obvious problem of clogging the courts with cases they couldn't handle and the potential to bankrupt every company that ever had anything to do with computers). Any software that has a Y2K limitation is just that - limited. It was state of the art, industry standard practice at the time that the software was built. (Maybe some very recent products should be exempt from this protection?) The limitation was widely known. In the absence of someone claiming Y2K compliance when their product was, in fact, not compliant, the law ought to protect the manufacturer from lawsuits that may result from using their software outside of its designed limitations. An analogy might be if you had some less than successful surgery years ago prior to the general availability of surgical microscopes. Suppose the surgery would have had vastly better results if done with a surgical microscope? Should you today be allowed to sue the doctor for performing a surgery with known risks using what were widely accepted medical techniques at that time? MDC -- Marin David Condic If you hurry you can, for a short time only, still find me at: Real Time & Embedded Systems, Propulsion Systems Analysis United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney, Large Military Engines M/S 731-95, P.O.B. 109600, West Palm Beach, FL, 33410-9600 ***To reply, remove "bogon" from the domain name.*** Visit my web page at: http://www.mcondic.com/