LETTER TO THE EDITOR.

Sir: As a culture, we are dangerously shortsighted. We make no plans for the long term. We just waltz along, or sometimes Charleston along, whistling a carefree tune and trusting that the future will take care of itself. That is what our forefathers did before us, and look what happened. It is therefore the duty of every forward-looking citizen to point out looming catastrophes that will come crashing down on our descendants. Otherwise our civilization will march off every cliff and tumble into every crevasse.

This is why I am writing to you today: to point out that we are leaving a mess that will cause headaches and possibly indigestion and scalp itch for our children’s children. I am speaking, of course, of the matter of dates. In every way we use dates as one of the principal organizing principles of our affairs. Databases are sorted by date. Birth dates are the form of identification universally required in the health-care industry. Yet no one seems to have taken into account the fact, which one would have thought was obvious to a six-year-old, that, in only 7,975 years, the year will have five digits.

Fortunately, it is not too late. We have a little less than eight millennia to address the Y10K problem, but if we start early and put our backs into it we should be able to get the work done in time. We need to begin at once, however, because it is a titanic task. Every database on the planet must be migrated to a new system that has space for six digits. I say six because it is obvious that, if we added only one more digit, we would merely be buying ourselves a temporary reprieve.

Of course there will be pedantic types who will point out that, in 997,975 years, the year will have seven digits. But I think it is silly to worry about problems so far in the future, and we can dismiss those pedants as the cranks they are. —Sincerely, Dr. Marcus Wudge, Ph.D., Executive Director, Intl Ass’n of Pedantic Cranks.

Comments

  1. tom says:

    Whew, that’s a relief. At first I thought he was talking about the dates that go into date and nut loaf. Imagine a future without those dates!

  2. von Hindenburg says:

    The real crisis will hit on 10/24/2173 when the numbers that Excel and Sheets use to represent dates will roll over to 100,000 and millions of undocumented spreadsheets handling all the little things that were too trivial to ask IT to automate will suddenly break.

    • Puzzled in Poughkeepsie says:

      I tried out my own Office 2000 Excel (.exe dated 1999) and find that it handles dates up to 12/31/9999 (date serial number 2,958,465) (there is a wrinkle in how the =date() function handles year number =1900).  If one enters the integer 2958465 in one cell, and 2958466 in another cell, then apply date format to both cells, the 2958465 one shows 12/31/9999 while the 2958466 cell freaks out ###ily. ###ically?

      I also fired up Lotus 1-2-3 rel. 2.3 for DOS (.exe dated 1992).  It can accommodate dates up to 12/31/2099 (serial date 73050), but applying date format to 73051 and greater freaks out 1-2-3 vintage 1992, but ***ily instead of ###ily. (asteriskily versus octothorpically?)

      ??

  3. Belfry Bat says:

    No one tell the fellow that we have devised data structures that *themselves tell how long they are*, and instead The difficulty is that when redundant copies of the database disagree, there’s no way to tell if either version is correct!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *