Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4

From: LX-i (lxi0007_at_netscape.net)
Date: 01/07/04 

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:10:00 -0600

Ian Dalziel wrote:
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message news:<vvk7ib5vns9hf0@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>>Ian Dalziel wrote:
>>
>>>"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<drGIb.28594$Pg1.21843@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I was wondering how many shops/applications that were CHANGED to
>>>>handle the "odd" rules about 2000 and leap year have been tested
>>>>already at most shops?
>>>
>>>
>>>Which "odd" rules were those? Leap years that are divisible by four?
>>
>>Years divisble by 100 are not leap years, unless they are also divisible
>>by 400. So, 2000 was a leap year, 2096 and 2104 will be leap years, but
>>2100 will not.
>>
>
>
> Exactly - so any leap year code that worked for the "odd" rules in
> 1996 would not have to be "CHANGED" to work for the "odd" rules in
> 2000, would it?
>
> In 2100, yes, but I feel I'll have lost interest by then...

Well, yes, I would imagine so. However, I think we in the early 2000's
are making the same mistake those "early" 1960's and 70's folks made,
thinking "this stuff will never be around then". I'm still young, and
expect to see 2030+ in code (assuming I remain on this earth that long)
- but one thing I've learned is that it's best to code for a life
expectancy long past your initial estimate, because your code just might
outlive you.

In "only" 66 years, 30-year mortgages are going to have final payment
dates in the year 2100. I'm sure that none of the 30+ year-old code
I've seen was intended to last that long, but it did.

(I'm not rabid in this, it's just something that I make a point to do,
and encourage others. Sort of like coding error handling as I code,
instead of going back and putting it in. :> ) 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          LXi0007@Netscape.net          ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~         I do not read e-mail at the above address           ~
~    Please see website if you wish to contact me privately   ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4
    ... Ian Dalziel wrote: ... >>already at most shops? ... Years divisble by 100 are not leap years, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4
    ... > Ian Dalziel wrote: ... > Years divisble by 100 are not leap years, ... Exactly - so any leap year code that worked for the "odd" rules in ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: No panic - but .. Y2K + 4
    ... My original point was that I could imagine (in ... my NIGHTMARES) someone putting in a rule to "correctly" handle 2000 - but ... Any program that included "correct" leap year logic, ... "Ian Dalziel" wrote in message ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)