RE: Y2K39

You're addressing someone who ends a statement with a question mark. If
you're not careful, the Booth-a-Hoop will start spinning, and we'll veer
into a discussion about scroll bars and radio buttons. On a twin-ax
terminal. With a mouse.

Paul Nelson
Cell 708-670-6978
Office 409-267-4027
nelsonp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jon
Paris
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 4:04 PM
To: Midrange-L Midrange-l
Subject: Re: Y2K39

Have to disagree Booth - I don't recall anyone saying that programs would
not be in use in 30 years. Heck there was already apple evidence that they
would go on forever as long as IBM let them go on working.

There had to be a window - and it had to be 100 years. At the time the
decision was made the 1940 to 2039 range looked reasonable - but it was
always part of the discussion that one day the window would need to move -
and that it would be a pain in the **** when it did.

I have to believe that IBM will have something available in not too many
years - as someone has already noted - mortgages are already there.
Hopefully when they retooled for Y2K they used their own windowing rules to
handle the 2 digit output situations.


Jon Paris

www.partner400.com
www.SystemiDeveloper.com

On Apr 22, 2015, at 3:43 PM, Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In one way, this speaks to the incredible power and life of the AS400.

The 1940-2039 window was a temporary fix that more or less accepted the

idea that 1980s programs would no longer be in use 30 years later. Still
here, still working.

Maybe it is time for IBM to go all retro and accept that they have a

product that should be rescued from "cash harvest" phase? Lets recognize
the AS400 for the industry leader it was and restore that luster in the
marketing approach? Where are we now? AS400 7.0? Does that have a ring to
it? Maybe AS400g?

On 4/22/2015 2:13 PM, Dan wrote:

In another thread, I am seeking advice on finding an error related to a
date past 2039, given the system's 1940-2039 2-digit year "window".

Someone posted a comment "Y2K39 :-)", and I have to wonder, are we going

to

see Y2K-like projects all over again because of shortsighted fixes made
back in the 1990's that made no changes to fields using 2-digit years?
Because, of course, there was no way that any of these applications would
be running in another 40 years, right? As if we hadn't already learned

our

lesson with Y2K. But I digress.

Is there a chance IBM will shift that window to something like 1960-2059

at

some point in the future? I've thought there might be a system value

that

would allow each shop to customize this window. But I can see where that
would be problematic as well.

Is the Power i the only system affected by the 1940-2039 2-digit year
"window"?

- Dan

--
Booth Martin<br>
www.martinvt.com<br>
(802)461-5349<br><br>

Write [code] in a way that clearly communicates your intent.
-- Douglas Crockford, during his keynote at YUIConf 2011
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing

list

To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.