Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E.H.F. who wrote (1288)	3/25/1998 4:15:00 AM
From: Quad Sevens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

<<< To fix the problem you have to go through millions of (for the big companies) lines of code and recode the date variable with an updated version of COBOL (that's compliant) so you can do things like recognize four digit years and and do math with it. >>> Just want to make one thing clear: To talk about any version of COBOL as being y2k compliant or noncompliant makes no sense. COBOL is a programming LANGUAGE. It is the PROGRAMS written in this language that may not be compliant. There are y2k compliant programs written in old COBOL 68, and there are y2k noncompliant programs written in even the most recent versions of COBOL. Wade

To: E.H.F. who wrote (1288)	3/25/1998 9:08:00 AM
From: John Lister	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Thanks for the reassurance. I learnt that the old computer languages are the problem. As you said there are millions of lines of code - it is going to be a time-consuming exercise. We have two main problems - 1. Time. Can we get all these systems compliant in time ? I was told that you have to parallel-run the system for at least 6 month to ensure that there are no bugs. So system must be tested and compliant by no later than mid-1999 to be sure that come Jan 1, 2000 there will be no surprises. 2. Cost. How many corporations have the financial resources and willingness to spend money to solve the problem. Even the U.S. Dept. of Defence is still fudging the issue. John

To: E.H.F. who wrote (1288)	3/25/1998 9:41:00 PM
From: David Eddy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

E.H.F The real culprit is COBOL, an old language that's been around forever and is still in use by many businesses. Sorry, I can't leave such disinformation unchallenged. COBOL is no more guilty than any other language. There is no computer language in this universe that forces you to use it correctly. There are 30 year old COBOL systems that have been Y2Kok since their creation. There are JAVA applets being written today that will fail. The culprit is management that looked the other way when systems got seriously complex. Management has been furiously building this 1,000 room castle... and guess what? There's no sinking fund & we need to replace all the plumbing. The size of the pipes has nothing to do with it. - David