LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  June 1999

TEAM-ADA June 1999

Subject:

Re: Ada and Y2K

From:

"Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Robert C. Leif, Ph.D.

Date:

Fri, 4 Jun 1999 21:34:06 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (135 lines)

To: Steven Deller et al.
From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.

Your response is magnificently typical of the Ada community. You care and
are embarrassed about any possibility of a poorly engineered product. You
also have demonstrated in a real case how easy it is to maintain Ada. From a
marketing point of view, you have a gold mine. Go out and tell your
customers and future customers, Year 2K no big deal in Ada. Fix your
problems in less than an hour! Yes, Year 2K is ridiculously hyped. However,
this hype should be used to sell both Ada and the culture of good software
engineering.

You should write this up as an article, publish it, and use it for
advertising. The best place would be the Wall Street Journal or the New York
Times. We looked for over a year for an Ada Year 2K problem. Found one based
on a poor design and fixed it in less than an hour. This is a much greater
technological marvel than most Internet stocks.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Steven Deller
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 7:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Ada and Y2K
>
>
> > > From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
> > >
> > > Two questions. 1) Was this date package written in Ada? And
> 2) If it was
> > > written in Ada, how much work did it take to fix? I suspect that there
> > > may
> > > have been other Year 2K problems in Ada. However, the ease of
> maintaining
> > > Ada made the effort to repair minimal. Minimal effort
> projects are seldom
> > > reported because they do not change the budget. Actually, the Year 2K
> > > problem is NOT the disease. If Year 2K problem is significant, it is a
> > > symptom of poorly engineered software.
>
> I wrote the fix.  I added a sliding window for 2-digit date
> interpretations,
> that can be changed by the application.  I fixed the
> get_from_text routines
> to accept either 2-digit or 4-digit dates (with the 2-digit dates being
> interpreted based on the sliding window).  I also added 4-digit output
> routines.  Even with the bad spec and implementations mentioned
> below, it was
> a simple matter to make these changes.  The hardest part was figuring out
> what changes to make that would be least obtrusive (if there
> existed any code
> using the package), and most likely to be correct even if used "stupidly".
>
> Note that the spec for dates.a is a very *bad* abstraction.  It was only a
> toy interface used for the "Getting Started with VADS" document, and was
> included as source only so the user could "follow along" with the
> documentation.  It was put into "publiclib", where there was explicitly NO
> Verdix (originally) or Rational (later) commitment to correctness.
>
> The implementation is so brain-dead, I was embarrassed to work on the code
> body -- for example, subtraction of two dates is done by incrementing the
> lesser date until it equals the greater date, incrementing the
> count of days
> with each iteration of the loop.  The spec is so bad an
> abstraction (really
> it is a non-abstraction) that I cannot believe anyone actually
> ever used the
> package outside of the Getting Started document
>
> To top it off, the package itself was *NOT* Y2K-non-compliant per
> se.  It was
> only that the package *might* have been *easily* used in a
> Y2K-non-compliant
> manner that caused the problem.
>
> The package could have been used in a Y2K-compliant way by any application
> that did a little work when calling it.  That is the problem with
> Y2K-compliance and "parts of a program" (including the choice of
> language) --
> they simply are inconsistent concepts.  Only an application can be
> Y2K-compliant or Y2K-non-compliant, not any particular part of an
> application.
>
> In spite of disclaimers, poor abstraction, and poor implementation, crazed
> Y2K-zealots were having major problems with this "non-compliant"
> package in
> VADS.  Essentially they concluded that all of VADS was non-compliant.
>  Telling them to simply delete the package from their release did
> not weaken
> their resolve.
>
> Eventually it became clear that rather than try to talk sense into these
> people, it was easier and less time consuming to simply put out a
> version of
> the package that was more likely to be used in a Y2K-compliant manner by
> "dumb" applications (which by my reckoning are the only ones that
> might use
> the package).
>
> Hopefully this is the last discussion on this aspect of Y2K-compliance.  I
> personally find it all a bunch of hype over nothing.  Some things
> will break,
> but few will break on Jan 1, 2000.  Most will break a year or two
> before that
> or in the ensuing year.  For example, when your new charge card
> came with a
> 02/01 expiration date, that was an opportunity for a Y2K failure.
>  Similarly,
> when you go to renew your car license in Jan 2001 from the last
> registration
> that was done in 1999, that is an opportunity for a Y2K failure -- I can
> envision them getting 2000 right, but screwing up on subtracting
> 99 from 01.
>  There are all sorts of ways to make programs that break, and Y2K
> is only one
> of them.  In the end, all critical things will work (because people have
> checked), and many non-critical things may break (I consider the IRS
> non-critical unless I get audited).
>
> It is a great opportunity for COBOL, FORTRAN and assembly code
> programmers to
> make a lot of money if they can stand reverse-engineering some of
> the worst
> code ever written.  The C-code guys are good until 2032 :-).
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
> Steven Deller, Apex Ada Marketing
> [log in to unmask], (410) 757 6924
> Rational Software Corporation, http://www.rational.com
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager