I am not an applications guy, and I didn't do any applications Y2K remediation, so I am not an expert, but it would seem to me that if I had used windowing I would have based the window on the current date -- today minus 80 years or something like that -- so that it would never fail (in this way -- of course, software has many ways to fail). It would work as well in 2040 as it did in 2000.
Don't forget we've got another one of these coming up in 2042, and for people using UNIX times, one in 2038. 2042 does not seem so far away as it once did. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joel C. Ewing Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 8:37 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: it was 20 years ago today .... I always preferred to describe a 100-year windowed two-digit year representation by its lowest or "base" year, in this case 1920 -- just easier for me to visualize the 100 continguous years of validity on a timeline.. One would hope those who chose the fixed-windowing temporary solution to Y2K described in this article were honest enough to call 2020 the "Failure Year" and not some nice euphemism like "Pivot Year" that would sound less threatening to management with marginal tech skills. JC Ewing On 1/9/20 9:14 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-y2k-bug-is-back-causing-headaches-for-developers-again/?ftag=TRE-03-10aaa6b&bhid=21203266192019599533914397741980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
