Re: Software Engineering News Brief

[adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)]

seic@sw-eng.falls-church.va.us (Software Engineering News) writes:

 >*******************************
 >YEAR 2000  NO PROBLEM FOR ADA
 >
 >Ada developers who've been scorned by the C/C++ camp might be laughing 
 >all the way to the year 2000.
 >
 >Ada applications aren't likely to fail any time between now and January 1, 
 >2000, or beyond, for the simple reason that Ada doesn't let programmers 
 >represent dates in two-digit shorthand.
 >
 >"There's no problem with Ada," said Jacques Brygier, marketing director 
 >for Thompson Software Products.  "The language has been defined in a way 
 >that you cannot make this kind of mistake."  
 >
 >According to Dr. Charles Engle, chief of the Ada Joint Program Office, the 
 >Ada language itself has built-in dates from 1901 to 2099, thus eliminating 
 >the 2000 problem.
 >
 >TOPIC: ADA
 >
 >SOURCE:  Olsen, Florence.  "Ada sails smoothly into 2000," Government 
 >Computer News v15(25), Oct. 7, 1996, p. 33.  
 >
 >*************************************

Ada has a number of advantages over other languages, so I hope no one
trying to advocate the language resorts to a lame reason like this
one.  The Year 2000 problem is a software design issue, not a language
issue.  I think that programmers in recent years have been aware that
the millenium is looming, more than they were 25-30 years ago, so any
program designed these days will take the year 2000 into account.
Sure, other languages like C don't have standard library routines to
handle dates defined in the language definition, but it's no problem
to put your own together.  So I don't see how Year 2000 issues give us
any particular reason to crow about Ada.  (Or to insult C/C++ in the
process.  I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of programs with a
Year 2000 problem are COBOL, RPG, or other older languages, not C and
definitely not C++.)

                                -- Adam