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: Bill Ounce who wrote (2566)	9/12/1998 3:40:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Senate committee hearings: senate.gov

To: Bill Ounce who wrote (2566)	9/12/1998 9:28:00 AM
From: John Mansfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9818

Jo Anne Effect ____ 'From: kiyoinc@ibm.XOUT.net (cory hamasaki) vr 13:12 Subject: Re: The "Anne Jo" Effect Jo Anne, Anne Jo, or ennA oJ... whatever. The problem may be in general porpoise, uh, purpose (I'm getting tired of seaing, seeing, sea mammals on TeeVee. and not enough episodes of Bay Watch with other kinds of sea mammals... oh my, it's too late to be typing this... The problem may be general purpose MIS systems that are customizable. Some firms have fiscal years that don't match calendar years. A system that works for them will also work firms that have fiscal years that match calendar years. If the fiscal year does not match the calendar year, you can't key simply on the digits of the year, the code must generate the bounding years, months, and days, and do full comparisons. I would guess that most systems are general purpose and do the full comparison even though that specific firm is on a fiscal year = calendar year basis. While we're yacking, there are more than a few systems that key on just the year and don't include the decade. Maxwell Online did that in their main database. A few systems have bounding periods compiled directly into the load module, purists like Shmuel might scream but there are strange and wonderful things out there. These are a few of the, I can't believe they did that, stories that Y2K vets know about. On Fri, 11 Sep 1998 02:32:58, ame1o@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > Tim, this is a good point, but having investigated this a little, I haven't > found evidence of either the Jo Anne or your new analogous discovery. > Although I'm sure they exist in other organizations. > > The issue is that a lot of reporting (e.g., against an Oracle backend) is even > lazier than what Jo Anne, Cory, etc. have described, which effectively is: > > (date > 12/31/98) and (date < 1/1/00) > > which would definitely get hosed up. Instead, what I'm seeing is _grouping_ > based upon year, month, and/or day. That is: > > year(date) = 99 > > This seems to work whether or not a four- or two-digit year is used. Since > this is more succinct and many programmers (well... at least I can > confidently speak for myself here) are quite lazy, I suspect that the > grouping approach is used quite often. > > Also, in reporting (say, printing billing summaries for the fiscal year), you > would end with a grouping approach for performance reasons. Such as: > > group level 1.... year(date) [=99] > group level 2.... company [a..z] > group level 3.... tot_out [z..a] (total outstanding) > > It's easier to optimize for this sort of report than a generic filter > condition, IMO. > > For older systems that made it harder to compute a year for grouping > purposes, I would expect the Jo Anne (and Anne Jo) effects to kick in. > Hopefully this is a decided minority of cases. > > Cheers Bob We'll see. We're really out of time, we've got to fix the truly essential services. We also don't have the time to let the clueless touch the code... it must be pros only from now on. cory hamasaki 476 days...