If you don't like binarythen there's unsigned packed decimal. The code to convert between packed decimal and unsigned packed decimal is not exactly rocket science.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of Clark Morris <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 6:29 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Reason for 2 digit years was Re: Instruction speeds [Default] On 14 Aug 2019 10:21:17 -0700, in bit.listserv.ibm-main [email protected] (Seymour J Metz) wrote: >There were other options to reduce the storage requirement of a date, e.g., >store them in binary. > The conversion to and from binary would have been costly in CPU time and for dates stored as packed decimal 0yymmdds the use of the high order nibble would have worked at the cost of complexity. I suspect that the real saving was in data entry and the desire to fit as much information on one 80 byte punch card as well as on to a 132 character print line. I note that my credit cards still use 2 digit years. Clark Morris > >-- >Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > >________________________________________ >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> on behalf of >Jesse 1 Robinson <[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:10 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Instruction speeds > >A couple of observations on Y2K accommodation. > >-- As my shop was slogging through remediation required for year 2000, >insurance companies apparently coasted along because they had ALWAYS needed to >handle four-digit years from the inception of IT. For them it was business as >usual. > >-- Can't cite attribution, but I remember the calculation that despite our >late 1990s poignant misery, the ancient choice to represent dates with two >digits was actually economically correct. The burdensome cost of both media >and memory storage in, say, 1970, outweighed on balance the eventual cost of >remediation. It's easy to ask what difference two bytes would have made, but >the hard-money cost of billions and billions of 'extra' bytes would have been >substantial. > >. >. >J.O.Skip Robinson >Southern California Edison Company >Electric Dragon Team Paddler >SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager >323-715-0595 Mobile >626-543-6132 Office ?=== NEW >[email protected] > >-----Original Message----- >From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> On Behalf Of >Seymour J Metz >Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 7:49 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: (External):Re: Instruction speeds > >> That assumes that you know what is unnecessary. The smart money says that >> the unnecessary code will turn out to be necessary, at the least convenient >> time. > >> A nice example is how to determine leap years: from as long as I program the >> flow is: >>- dividable by 4? >>- dividable by 100? >>- dividable by 400? > >The last 2 are completely unnecessary until the year 2100. > >And in the year 2100 people will curse you for deciding that it's unnecessary. > >Après Moi Le Déluge (Après nous le deluge for purists.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
