Re: Year 2000

Subject: Re: Year 2000
From: Laurie Rubin <lmr -at- SYL -dot- NJ -dot- NEC -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 1994 13:35:54 -0500

In the current job and the last two contracting jobs (all within the last
1 and 1/2 years) we've addressed the year 2000 issue. All of the development
teams I've been in agree the matter needs to be addressed now so there will be
no confusion in the future. In all three cases, we designed only 4-digit year
fields that expected only four digits (1996 or 2000). Even though it is a
few years away and software may be trashed or revamped many times over, we
have no idea how long the data may hang around in databases.


> In reply to:

> I just had to edit a technical paper and saw a date expressed
> as 08/17/00; implying the year 2000.

> Question is, is this going to be the commonly used form of
> expressing the year?

Previous by Author: Re: Year 2000
Next by Author: Re: Update/apply/synchronize
Previous by Thread: Re: Year 2000
Next by Thread: Re: Year 2000

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads