In article <[log in to unmask]>,
dated Fri, 4 Dec 1998 at 01:18:32, Ahmad Risk <[log in to unmask]>
writes
>On Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:14:48 +0000, Chris Salter wrote:
>
>>Which millennium are you referring to, Ahmad?
>
>9 September 1999
>
>(see, told you we were sloppy!)
>
That's OK! It bought me some time, usually a negative quantity commodity
where Y2K is concerned! I should explain that although my programming
career lasted many years, it was a long long time ago! :-) I have done
some quick research and came up with the following:
"Default "nonsense" date in many data-entry screens - 9-9-99 may have
been used as an indefinite "Purge" date - purge file overflow?"
I can't remember using that default date myself but I probably wouldn't
remember if I did. Strictly speaking it isn't a Y2K problem but it is a
good example of the complexity of the task involved in finding and
correcting 'Y2K code'. What may happen in any system that has such
default dates embedded can only be ascertained by reviewing the code.
The task of locating such code could range from trivial to major
(millions of lines of code, poorly documented, source code missing etc
etc). The impact of the code being left undetected could range from
trivial to disastrous. The task of correcting the system may range from
trivial to a complete rewrite.
The bottom line is that no-one can predict what is actually going to
occur in the coming months leading up to and following on from
2000/01/01 as far as Y2K is concerned. The doom and gloom merchants will
probably be disappointed. The 'it's all a gigantic media hype' brigade
are going to be in for a severe shock.
Chris
--
Chris Salter (Vice Chairman) Lincolnshire Post-Polio Network
Registered Charity No. 1064177
<URL:http://www.zynet.co.uk/ott/polio/lincolnshire/>
Web Site & Vice Chairman Email: [log in to unmask]
Honorary Secretary Email: [log in to unmask]
Member of the British Healthcare Internet Association
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|