Re: Y2K Comments

Subject: Re: Y2K Comments
From: Tracy Boyington <tracy_boyington -at- OKVOTECH -dot- ORG>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:13:17 -0600

> First, the so called Y2K "Bug" is not a bug. I really hate this description
> of the issue. It is not a bug, it is an inability of many computers to
> display dates the way we humans wish them to be displayed. You can't say a
> system has a bug if it is simply doing what it was designed to do.

OK, pardon my ignorance, cause I'm not in the software field, but I
really am curious...

Obviously a system can only do what it was designed to do. Whether what
it was designed to do is what the designer actually *intended* to design
it to do is another story. So, since software can only do what we tell
it to do, I always thought a bug was when something hadn't been
programmed properly, causing the software to do something to do
something unwanted, even though it was actually following instructions.
In that case, wouldn't faulty "instructions," such as "these two numbers
for the year always have a '19' in front of them" be considered a bug?
And if I'm wrong, what *is* the definition of a bug?

Thanks
Tracy
--
===========================================================
Tracy Boyington mailto:tracy_boyington -at- okvotech -dot- org
Oklahoma Dept. of Vocational & Technical Education
Curriculum & Instructional Materials Center
Stillwater, Oklahoma http://www.okvotech.org/cimc/
===========================================================

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=




Previous by Author: Re: UIE site (was FAQ Intranet site tips on visuals)
Next by Author: Re: Y2K Comments
Previous by Thread: Y2K Comments
Next by Thread: Re: Y2K Comments


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads