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: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public From: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Software landmines (loops) Date: 1998/09/04 Message-ID: <6spj4u$pi0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 387940373 References: <902934874.2099.0.nnrp-10.c246a717@news.demon.co.uk> <6r1glm$bvh$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6r9f8h$jtm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6renh8$ga7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rf59b$2ud$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6rfra4$rul$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35DBDD24.D003404D@calfp.co.uk> <6sbuod$fra$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35f51e53.48044143@ <904556531.666222@miso.it.uq.edu.au> <6sf87j$47n$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sh6ic$o8p$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6shhcq$lid$1@hirame.wwa.com> <6sk59r$8e6$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <6ske0c$16k$1@hirame.wwa.com> <35EF7971.1CDE6B7D@earthlink.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x12.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 192.160.8.44 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Sep 04 20:38:54 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/3.0 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.18 i586) Date: 1998-09-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <35EF7971.1CDE6B7D@earthlink.net>, Charles Hixson wrote: > > I hope that you are wrong about what they are doing. I fear that you > aren't. Windowing is a good solution for recovering the data before > saving it into a new format. It's a very bad permanent "solution". > Usually. I hope no one thinks it's intended as a permanent solution. Given that there's less than a year and a half until 2000 hits, what this solution does is to buy a lot of time to come up with a "real" solution. (I'm assuming that the windowing solution requires a lot less resources than expanding the date.) I agree that this solution may not make a lot of sense for an organization that can *comfortably* go to a 4-digit date and have everything in place by the time it's needed. Of course, there's the danger that pointy-haired managers will then fail to work on the "real" solution for the next 49 years, because "it's not causing any problems right now", and "our whole computer systems will be obsolete by then anyway", and "we've never heard of George Santayana". Now I have to go dig up the very funny joke that appeared on rec.humor.funny recently, about a COBOL programmer who got so sick of Y2K problems that he had himself cryo- genically frozen to be awakened in 2003, only the cryogenic machine wasn't Y2K compliant so it didn't wake him up in time, and they finally woke him up almost 8000 years later because they were about to have a Year 10000 problem and they needed someone who knew COBOL. -- Adam -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum