Can some please tell me the name of the computer programmer who first alerted us about the Y2K in the 1970's? My grandson needs it for a term paper. Thanks Katee D

-- Kate Duhamel (lduhamel@nisa.net), November 25, 1999

Answers

There were lots of us, including myself, waving the danger flag in the late 70's. The first Year 2000 compliant date handling subroutine I personally wrote was in COBOL in 1978 for United Telephone Company of FLorida, in Ft. Myers. I chose to write it to handle year 2000 dates and beyond even though some fellow programmers thought it was overkill.

-- TA (sea_spur@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

Hi TA,

Want to send me a copy of your gem for my students?

Thanks in advance...

-- Bob Barbour (r.barbour@waikato.ac.nz), November 25, 1999.

Wow TA,
You beat me by 12 years. My first data base
programs expanded all years to 4 digits (not
Y10K compliant;) and windowed all 2 didgit entries
from 1950 to 2049. I bet the COBOL gem would be
a bit esoteric

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), November 25, 1999.

Kate,
Bill Schoen warned of the problem in 1984.

Detroit Free Press

-- spider (spider0@usa.net), November 25, 1999.

the more "famous" one was Peter de Jager

http://www.year2000.com/y2kbio.html

(from Paul Revere to doomer to polly all in a decade)

-- dw (y2k@outhere.com), November 25, 1999.

Didn't Al Gore claim to warn us of the problem in 1960?

-- Sceptic (Sorrycouldnt@resist.com), November 25, 1999.

Here's an old TB2000 thread on the subject.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), November 25, 1999.

Thread

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), November 25, 1999.

deJager studied at Shoen's feet

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), November 25, 1999.

Didn't Bob Bemer and others fight with the DOD in the late 60's trying to help them realize that the 2 digit format would make a mess of things come 2000? They were voted down, and the 2 digit year became the default. (This was on GN maybe a year ago). Charlie.

-- Charlie (cstewart@ime.net), November 25, 1999.

Sheesh, I recognized the problem when I IPLed my first mainframe in 1968 - MM/DD/YY. But my boss said not to worry, it would all be under control by 12/31/99.

There was a ray of hope. The mainframe was "dead" a few years ago. All of those old applications would be replaced by the new, latest, and greatest "client server" or whatever stuff. The mainframe was dead. Long live the mainframe...

Little did we know that the mainframe would survive, with a bunch of it's old applications, to become GIANT WEB SERVERS. Little did we know that the hot, new technology had it's own Y2K problems...

Anyway, Cringely, whoever he is, is an early (90's) guy. So is Mr. Yourdon I guess. Public figure? We all knew decades ago...

Thank you, DOD...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

PS - Per your question, yes, there was "an official guy" in the 70's. We have it in the archive here. But it's Turkey Day Night, and I have some friends over. I shouldn't even be here... Maybe one of our Link Dudes will remember the thread...

Anyway, HAPPY TURKEY DAY...

i'll be back...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 25, 1999.

re Bill Schoen:

Programmer's Y2K alert finally gets heard

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), November 26, 1999.

Dear Kate,

It was Bob Bemer who wrote about the issue in February 1979. The article was published in ComputerWeekly or some other magazine alike. This piece of information is the orthodox one as long as I recall.

The question is not who knew the problem first or who realised it first. The method used was widely known and accepted per se, so it is quite impossible to give the credit to any particular person for being aware of how the code was written. But as to the article as a work of science the crucial question is who was the author of the first publication. In my opinion, the issue is not the mm/dd/yy structure itself but the structure as a problem with potential consequences if not fixed. In this case, it is Bob Bemer.

Another issue is how to explain the mess we have got into. I really hope that none of your students will explain it as simply a result of expensive memory. Such an explation is both unintellectual and wrong. Using four digits would have been ineffective and unneccessary, and no doubt, expensive. But in any moment when someone used it because another person had used it, his actions were not based on the initial reason. After that moment we have a phenomenon called path dependence. The argument that small historical - in this case the price of memory at that time - events can lead one technology or method to win out another was initially developed by W. Brian Arthur in his article "Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms in Economics", in a volume called The Economy as An Evolving Complex Systems (1988).

Arthur saw that there were four self-reinforcing mechanisms in econonomy i.e. in rational behaviour: Large setup or fixed costs, which in terms of Y2K can be seen for example in any tested, used, effective solution vs. any competitive idea of solution yet to develop, test and market; Learning effects; Coordination effects, there has been quite enough to coordinate all different orders to present the date even in short form. The triumph of Microsoft can been explained quite well with this and the latter one. It is hardly the superiority of their products; Adaptavive expectations, increased prevelance affects expectations and beliefs of further prevalence. Any dominant method gives a good reason to expect it to be used in future.

In my opinion this is a very good start for a reasoneble and truthful explaining of the Y2k.

Matias Kivimaa

P.S. As a Finn, I would like to add a small anecdote. The name Koskinen is a finnish name, John, of course, is not, it would be Jaakko. The end of his name "nen" tells that his family comes from Savo, one of our old provinces. There are some charasteristic features in people from different provinces, particularly between east and west. According to an old proverb the response rests on the listeners' shoulders when a person from Savo speaks.

In another meaning "-nen" is a diminutive form of a word. When a boy "poika" is called "poikanen", the expession belittles him. In fact, an off-spring of a bird is called "poikanen". "Koski" means a rapid, part of a river where the water moves fast over rocks. You should consider yourselves lucky while having Koskinen, a small rapid. In Finland, the chief of the Y2K committee of the state (without power, money, resouses, it is de facto a chat club) is Olavi Kvngds. Kvngds means a cascade or even a waterfall. If american GIs are a bit of annoyed about Koskinen's fraseology and his attitude, come here. In Finland the problem is solved. The state says so, the media says so, the firms say so. Last week Kvngds wrote in the number one newspaper that citizens have no reason to prepare. It was based on all the polly phrases you can ever imagine. He has no idea of embedded systems, supply chain risks, or domino effects. And because it is his job to know, the whole admininstration acts accordingly. Don't worry, be cool. Everyone else is.

-- Matias Kivimaa (Mail@lawyers2000.fi), November 26, 1999.

Kate, there were thousands of us. We had heated discussions about this in the mid-70's, by 1985 4-digit coding was acceptable practice if a bit over-zealous, by 1985 there was no economic reason to avoid it any longer, and by 1990 it was criminally stupid to use anything but 4-digit years.

There are few standout figures in this - just hordes of programmers, doing the best they could. One reason Y2k doesn't make good copy is that there are few heroes and villains. Mostly it's programmers (conscientious and/or stupid) muddling through budget limitations. Not too sexy.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), November 26, 1999.