On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:24 PM, DeLong, Eric <EDeLong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm pretty sure I'll be retired by then...
:-/
Never mind Y10K. "I'll be retired by then" is one of the principle
reasons so many shops opted for the 1940-2039 patch to Y2K (which is
what we did here). Our manager at the time continued to create
brand-new physical files with only 2-digit years even after Y2K, for
use by programs (again, of his design) which assumed a 2000-2099
window. :P
So, to address one of Dan's questions, about sliding the window, even
if IBM provided a system setting for this, it wouldn't make a
difference at some shops. Our Y2K problem had absolutely zero to do
with anything provided by IBM. It had everything to do with
shortsighted database design and application logic. We now have a
hodgepodge of date logic throughout our system. Lots of "if YY < 40
then CC = 20 else CC = 19" stuff from our Y2K effort, a little bit of
"perpetual window" stuff (usually tighter than 100 years, and centered
around the current year), and an increasing share of full-blown
4-digit years (sometimes even utilizing the actual date type!) as we
develop new stuff.
John Y.
midrange.com
