Y2K retrospective / was Re: Algol vs ...

[Chuck Guzis]

On 12 Feb 2010 at 9:19, Russ Bartlett wrote:

> I get back to my point that a lot of the comments and criticisms
> concerning the absence of the century in system design comes  from
> people ill equipped  and knowledgeable to be able to pass judgment. 
> By 1985 I had been working in Data Processing for 20 years!  Hardware
> constraints dictated what we did and didn't do.  The hardware
> constraints were our main obstacle and  were twofold:
> 
> 1) Cost - Memory was incredibly expensive (Read The mythical man
> month) 2) Hardware Technology - Early systems were mag tape only.  

Oh, c'mon, Russ!  I was there too and the greatest number of 2-digit 
Y2K gaffes were committed by COBOL programmers using PICTURE 99 for 
the year.  Had they thought just a bit, using PICTURE XX and then 
supplementing with a conversion routine to the appropriate decimal 
form of the year would have worked wonders.  Consider, for example, 
that if a programmer had allowed 0-9 and A-Z (uppercase) in the year 
field, the collating order would have been preserved and the 2-
position year field could have expressed 1,296 years in 2 character 
positions.

No, the prime cause was lazy programming.  I was guilty of it also.

--Chuck