Yes, you could easily modify YOUR code.
But you see this is the problem, and Ada doesn't make it easier or
harder to fix. Most of the Y2k code issues involve adding the extra 2
digits (Along with the years 00-69!) to resolve the ambiguity. The
solution is simple, the hard part is fixing all the places that people
"could easily modify" but didn't. What happens when you quit and go to
your next job, or get hit by a comet? It's not so simple for someone
else to just pick up your code.
Would it have impacted your schedule at all to make this code Y2k
compliant on the first go around? Probably not, but having to go back to
do the rework is very expensive. It's the old adage, "pay me now or pay
me more later."
This is more a design issue than a language one. I'm having to go back
and rework other people's code because of this same attitude, it's not
Y2k problems but the cause is the same. It's annoying to think that
something which could have been done by the original designer is put off
and ends up costing so much more. I'm inheriting that cost right now,
and its killing my budgets.
I don't know all your requirements, but this wouldn't pass our Y2K
requirement, which is levied by the government.
John T Apa [log in to unmask]
L-3 CSW (801) 594-3382
PO Box 16850 Fax: (801) 594-2195
640 North 2200 West Salt Lake City, UT. 84116-0850
>From: Chad Bremmon [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, March 08, 1999 4:56 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: What about a press release
>I started this thread and I guess I had better re-explain myself.
>What I was thinking of was the fact that had I written my Ada code with
>type Year_type is range 70 .. 99;
>I could easily modify that to be
>type year_type is range 1970 .. 1999;
>I may of course have to make some modifications to my IO routines that have
>written the 2 digit numbers to files.
>I guess maybe a survey would be more appropriate. . . how many ada programs
>struggling because of the Y2K problem?
>How many were easily able to fix it in isolated areas of their code?