RE: ODBC (was RE: Green screen - it's time is over )

Brad, it seems we don't communicate very well.  I'm going to point out one
specific instance of where we're just not communicating, and then leave it
at that.  The fact that I can't seem to frame my ideas in a way that makes
sense to you means that we're just going to waste the time and bandwidth of
this forum.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Jensen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Pluta"

> > > > over 85% of the application code WOULD NOT
> > > > HAVE REQUIRED A SINGLE CHANGE.
> > >
> > > Sure, and all the date calculations would have worked fine....
> > > I don't think so.
> >
> > I said 85%.  Do you think more than 15%
> > of programs had date calculations?  What would your estimate be?
> > Actually, far less than 15% had date calculations - more had date
> > COMPARISONS rather
> > than date calculations, but even so those were less than 15%.
>
> See, I started as a machine language and assembler program, and I
> know that ever comparison is a calculation, so that hair split
> went right by me.
>
> Adn you find your programs with date calculations by - reviewing
> ever single program.
>
> And date calculations are just one of many changes that would be
> necessary - any real data structure changes is likely to cause a
> need for a programming change - the program is onlky there to
> support the data structure and its use.
>
> > How do I
> > know?  My product, Focus/2000, was used to convert hundreds of
> > systems worldwide.
>
> Congratulations.

See, this isn't a discussion or even an argument.  I made a statement: over
85% of programs would not have needed changes for Y2K if they had been
server-based.  You disagreed with a rather flip "I don't think so."  I
answered your point with a concise statement about how dates are used in
programs, with corroborating information about my experiences in converting
systems.

Your point about comparisons and calculations doesn't relate to the 85%
figure; less than 15% of business programs use date comparisons or
calculations, regardless of your machine language background.  Your comment
about reviewing every program doesn't relate to the 85% figure; after
review, less than 15% of the programs would have needed changes.  Your
comment about data structures might have been relevant, if you had any
numbers to back it up.  However, my experience was that less than one out of
five systems ever put dates in data structures, and even then it was only a
few isolated instances where programmers got clever.  While that point had
the distinction that it might have actually been marginally relevant, in the
end it doesn't affect the 85% figure, either.

Then, to add insult to irrelevancy, when I detail my experience, you give me
another flip comment: "Congratulations".

All I tried to do was point out that, given my experience in both Y2K
conversion and client/server architecture, I found that a message-based
client/server architecture was less affected by Y2K than a non-message-based
one.  I used a real example, real figures, and honestly attempted to
communicate.  You went off on three different tangents - your machine
language experience, having to review every program, and data structures -
none of which contributed anything to the discussion, and then finally you
were rather insulting on top of it.

Zero communication in either direction.  Zero addition to the conversation,
zero addition to the knowledge base of this list (from either of us).  These
discussions add nothing for anyone.  So, from now on, I suggest we simply
ignore each other's posts.  For whatever reason, we seem not to have enough
common ground to communicate effectively and that means that we'll just be
wasting time and bandwidth.

I'm sorry we haven't been able to discuss this productively.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend.  I'm off to watch my beloved Bears.

Joe