Discussion: View Thread

On Fri, 17 Dec 1999 Edryce Reynolds wrote RE:Subject: Y2K
>I have been associated with the computer field since 1954, and I can tell
>you from firsthand experience that it "first came up" DECADES ago! It
>has not been a cost issue; it is a planning issue--a use-of-resources
>issue. People who are responsible for computers are always running
>behind; there is always more expected of them than they can possibly
>produce (the using community is still not sufficiently educated to what
>computers can really do for them). Every time anyone has wanted to deal
>with the 2000 issue, they were laughed out of the room; there were too
>many more pressing issues.

Sorry, Edryce but I think you have just described an excellent example of
negligence.
It takes no longer to write a program with explicit dates as to write one
with implicit dates. And as you must know the evils of implicitness goes
far beyond dates.

Back in the 50's and 60's it was an apparent cost issue because the extra
two bytes at $1 per byte was visible (the error was that they did not think
of the life cycle cost instead of only the storage cost). Now that the
extra two bytes cost only $0.00000001 the storage cost is trivial.

CEO's and CIO's are responsible not only for getting from Point A to Point
B but also for avoiding icebergs on the way. The primary demand is Do No
Harm.

So the denial of the implicit date field problem is a classic "bad
decision."

In the medical profession the desire to avoid such outcomes is what created
the practice of "the second opinion." Medic's still make too many bad
decisions but not as many with second opinions.
Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
480-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615,

Does perceptions of "discounting undeniable risk situations" change with time?
Do we need to take time out of the equation? Furthermore, are we observing the
adoption of a "quick fix" for a permanent fix? Should this be a warning to shift
into a new mode of thinking for "sustainable solutions"?

Who?s to blame for using a solution outside of its original scope. Many
programmers thought their programs would serve their intended purpose and be
long gone, replaced by new better solutions, well before any of the known
limitations in the software surfaced. Besides the way technology is developing,
plus the way we make decisions the trade off is in favor of the "quick fix".
Fast results, immediate satisfaction that delivers value to resolves today?s
preoccupations and who cares about the future. Bluntly put, we rather eat the
desert now and resolve to lose the pounds in the future than resolve to eat the
desert until we have lost the pounds. Unfortunately that future "diet" keeps
being displaced by the now preoccupation, until it is evident that complications
are imminent and even then some just rather put up with the accumulation than
take actions to reverse it. For keeping the pounds off, the optimal resolution
is to have a well balanced diet and an exercise plan that burns off the excess
calories ingested which can be followed indefinitely. I wonder if there is an
analogous optimal resolution in the business side, do we need to both shift into
a frame of sustainable solutions and have in place a plan that burns off the
limitations acquired when making resolutions.

Just a thought...

Saludos

Esteban