It has been my experience that in nearly all software I've looked at where there has been some significant degree of date processing it has been non-compliant. Only those systems without much date processing have been more or less compliant, maybe a few small changes. Is this the experience of other forum members.

-- Richard Dale (rdale@figroup.co.uk), November 26, 1998

Answers

I would think that a large percentage of date processing is not compliant. Virtually every monitor I see, whether in the local video store, government office, hardware store, library etc., has two digits for the years column. Even my banks ATM machine was shut down the other day with a sign on it reading "Sorry. Out of service for a few hours due to Y2K remediation." Heck, that ATM has not been around for that many years.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), November 26, 1998.

Depends on who wrote it. Two digit years can be valid after 1/1/00 - all the programmer had to do was to assume all dates up to say 12/31/49 referred to dates after 2000 rather than 1900. Some systems count seconds instead of years - they just figure out the year from the number of seconds that have passed since some starting point - 1/1/1800 seems pretty common for these types of systems - though I saw some code once that started counting in 1/1/0000, and saw an example for some that started about 2000 BC.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), November 28, 1998.

Also, what's displayed on the screen (or printed report) may be the "trimmed" fields from a compliant 4 digit field, or maybe not.

And even if a 4 digit field is found in one place, doesn't mean the "math" or the field_id is correctly processed everywhere else in the program. I still predict "weird and wonderful errors" happening in all sorts of "beautifully hidden places" in many million programs.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), November 29, 1998.

a@a.a Interesting table. Could you possibly cite your sources?? For one, the Yourdon prediction doesn't jibe with my last reading of his stance (doesn't mean s*** since I may be out of date on his current stance, but....). i am also interested in where the Pournelle stance came from..

Chuck

-- Chuck a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), December 03, 1998.

Chuck,

Its my personal assesment (notice I accidentially blew my cover...). I was testing the HTML -- didn't think anyone would notice it on this old thread. I'm getting ready to post the update to a new thread. I now group Ed with Cory (didn't have that much info back in August). The Pournelle rating is based on an article he wrote in August-*very* optimistic, toasters, microwave ovens, etc... Don't know where he stands now, but am keeping him where he is on the chart.

The new one is, I feel, more accurate

-- a (a@a.a), December 03, 1998.

Whoa!
Good job.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), December 03, 1998.

A@A:

We notice everything......except mispelled spelkling errors. For that, you gotta get a teacher.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), December 03, 1998.