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 : Y2K (Year 2000) Stocks: An Investment Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bobby Yellin who wrote (11281)	4/29/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: TEDennis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13949

Bobby: Re: all the systems I worked on didn't fudge the date And, that's EXACTLY the problem. IBM's systems in the 60's, 70's, and 80's returned the date as 5 digits from SVC 11 (the TIME macro). This 5 digit format was called Julian ... YYDDD, where YY is the year and DDD is the ordinal of the day of the year. The compiler routines that took that date converted them to a 6 digit format called Gregorian ... MMDDYY (with or without the appropriate slashes), where MM was the ordinal of the month of the year (1-12), DD was the ordinal of the day of the month (1-31), and YY was the ordinal of the year (00-99). If the programmers didn't "fudge the date" (your terminology) to include the "19" as the ordinal of the century, then they coded a bug into their routines. Thus, here in the 90's, where we're so close to the century rollover, there is a confusion factor between whether 00 means 1900 or 2000. Regards, TED (A world class assembler dinosaur)