Anthony Atkielski wrote:
> From: "Keith Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > it often seems to be the case that if you design for
> > the long term, what you get back isn't deployable
> > in the near term because you've made the problem
> > too hard.
>
> I dunno. I don't think that adding two more digits in the 1960s to year
> fields would have really made any problems too hard.
Hard, no; expensive, yes. Consider a DMV system for a state with, oh, 10
million people; each person has a record with at least 3 dates (birth, license
expiration, and one registration date for each car). Using 4-digit years would
have required over 60MB more storage space. I don't know 1960s storage prices,
but I know that 60MB would have cost enough to be worth saving.
--
/==============================================================\
|John Stracke | http://www.ecal.com |My opinions are my own.|
|Chief Scientist |=============================================|
|eCal Corp. |Anyone who has a conditioned response |
|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|immediately thinks of Pavlov. |
\==============================================================/
