PSI - Back To The Future?

Back To The Future?

August 27, 1998 (Note: Despite the age of this article, the issues are timeless.)

In the "Letters" column of the September 1998 PC World magazine, Kent M. Bridwell of Los Angeles writes:

"What's the big fuss about Windows 98? It's just a minor evolutionary step in the overall development of Windows software. I'm content to wait a couple of years for Microsoft to release Windows 1900!"

Earlier this morning, in a discussion with a distant family member, I was asked my opinions about the so-called 'Y2K bug'. This person, who has probably never personally used a computer in her entire life, has been brought to the point of absolute terror that this particular 'bug' will signal the end of life as we know it. Airplanes will crash, toasters will stop working, and, heaven forbid, televisions will stop showing reruns of 'Happy Days' ('cause it'll be a show about the future).

According to some so-called 'analysts', this particular computer problem will cause major economic upheaval and social distress. In a way, this very well may be self-fulfilling prophecy; Folks are getting so freaked out that they don't want to take a midnight flight on News Years Eve, 1999; People talk about taking all their money out of their bank and investment accounts the week before 'the day'; and it wouldn't surprise me to find people trading in their TVs for radios (but not the clock radios, of course) because they won't be able to watch Oprah any more. (Here's a tip: January 1, 2000 is a Saturday -- Oprah isn't shown on Saturday.) No wonder these folks see so much upheaval -- they're causing it.

The Y2K problem is indeed a problem, don't get me wrong. The bigger problem, however, is the media-induced hysteria. Somewhere, there must be someone who is getting really rich from this doomsday talk. Perhaps the antacid vendors?

My goal in bringing up this topic is not because everyone else is, or to overanalyze the big black cloud that will cover the earth on January 1, 2000. Instead, I want to take a look at the Y3K problem. Yes, you read it right, Y3K.

Why should I care about Y3K? I certainly won't be alive to deal with the problems that Y3K is going to cause. So I guess it isn't my problem, right?

WRONG.

This is, in no uncertain terms, one of the primary causes of the problem we're facing right now. Over the last 20 years (longer in some cases), too many programmers across the world have taken the "it's not my problem" attitude, and now businesses are footing an absolutely incredible tab to fix what has been affectionately called a 'bug'. Hey, you know it and I know it: It's not so much a bug in the program as much as a bug in the programmer.

In the year 2020, new programs will be written. About that time, a young buck (or doe) programmer fresh out of college will write a little program to calculate the hyperbolic coefficient of a nanocentric idioexosphere. (...hey, it could happen...) He or she won't think much about the fact that to be nanocentric it needs a couple of dates here and there, and hey, nobody ever uses 1900 dates anymore, so why not just store the last two digits and save a couple of bytes of storage?

Unfortunately, without future vision (which won't be created until 2050) they won't know is that the calculation of the ideoexo-whatever will form the fundamental basis for the calculation of half a dozen other (currently) nonexistent terms. And the program will continue to be used long into the future, until in 2098 someone will come along and figure out that they need to spend a half a billion dollars (which will be a little over a year's salary) to change all the programs to store 4-digit dates. Hmmm.. Oddly familiar.

Those who ignore the mistakes of the past are destined to repeat them.

We as analysts facing the Y2K problem have a much bigger responsibility than just fixing 20 year old problems. We need to educate those who follow us to know that tomorrow does come, and occasionally it crosses a significant boundary. But more than just problems with dates, it signals a greater need analytically: We need to be proactive in understanding how the future might affect every aspect of the programs we write. Failure to do so will continue to cause problems such as we're facing here in the next few months, and with these kinds of problems on the front burner, progress inevitably takes a back seat.

Forgive the cliché, please: If we don't have time to do it right, when will we have time to do it over?

Y3K is my problem. Anyone who cuts code should consider it their concern. And to this end, we'll continue to be proactive in looking to the future. We'll continue doing whatever it takes to get it right. And when Y3K comes around, perhaps the best thing that could be said is "wow -- this guy wrote some code back in the 1990's and it still works today!".

For now, however, I need to get some toast... while I still can...

Kevin King is the President and Chief Technologist with Precision Solutions, Inc., a leading technology solutions provider in Longmont, Colorado. He can be reached by email at Kevin@PrecisOnline.com or by voice at 303/651-7050.