BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 05 Jan 00 - 01:04 AM

One final comment, I have been playing with a bit of Java and wanted a couple of other browsers other than my IE5 to test things on. The latest versions of Netscape and HotJava obey the rules for getYear in the manner that my documentation describe - ie report 100 not 2000. I don't suppose this could be a case of Microsoft redefining the JavaScript standards could it?

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 05:39 AM

Mudguard, I have just read your last post again and see what you have said that the latest standards are and according to those rules, my browser is working correctly but I am still curious to know what standards you are reffering to and where to find them if they can be downloaded from the web.

I have checked my documentation and it is still the latest available (last updated 28 May 1999) from developer.netscape.com and I find it hard to believe that Netscape would be out of date or inaccurate on Java Script documentation even though they appear to be.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 04:42 AM

Just been playing with Java Script and I must admit that I am intrigued by this one. According to my documentation, getFullYear was implemented in v1.3 and my browser IE5 supports the function and correctly reports 2000. I can not see how to find the version of Java Script but I would have thought it reasonable to assume that if the function was introduced in v1.3 and my browser recognises it, it must have that version or higher.

The documentation I have for getYear says:

The getYear method returns the year minus 1900; thus:

For years above 2000, the value returned by getYear is 100 or greater. For example, if the year is 2026, getYear returns 126.

For years between and including 1900 and 1999, the value returned by getYear is between 0 and 99. For example, if the year is 1976, getYear returns 76.

For years less than 1900 or greater than 1999, the value returned by getYear is less than 0. For example, if the year is 1800, getYear returns -100. To take into account years before and after 2000, you should use Date.getFullYear instead of getYear so that the year is specified in full.

Backward Compatibility JavaScript 1.2 and earlier versions. The getYear method returns either a 2-digit or 4-digit year:

For years between and including 1900 and 1999, the value returned by getYear is the year minus 1900. For example, if the year is 1976, the value returned is 76.

For years less than 1900 or greater than 1999, the value returned by getYear is the four-digit year. For example, if the year is 1856, the value returned is 1856. If the year is 2026, the value returned is 2026.

When I call getYear, my IE browser yeilds 2000 which seems to imply that is Java Script 1.2 or earlier as in 1.3 or higher, it should yeild 100.

Mudguard or somebody please explain.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 03:17 AM

I wish I could answer Alan but I am even more of a part timer than you. I just write the occasional simple program for my own ammusement and am more comfortable in C++ than Java. Delphi (pascal based) is actually my favourite but I don't have a 32 bit version so most of my attempts at programs end up in C.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:56 AM

G'day,
That 'fix' at the TPG site looks very makeshift to me, and now if you change your clock back a year it still says 2000. My guess is that their programmer gave up when it was time to go home (a short time ago) & just stuck that in.

Being a part time C programmer, (not Java) I was only guessing, but what does Netscape do that IE didn't?

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:45 AM

Just had another look at the site Alan refered to. It now refers to 2000 correctly but I can't believe the way they have corrected it (and it is Java Script):

document.write(2000 +"")

Oh well they said this wasn't really the millenium. This must be the first proper millenium bug!!!

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:20 AM

Mudguard, I think a lot depends on what we are talking about. I was reffering to Java which I thought was what Alan meant and the getYear function is marked as being deprecated in my reference and refers to the calender class for the prefered functions.

If we are reffering to Java Script, according to the latest reference I have, getYear is also deprecated and versions 1.3 onwards support getFullYear.

Not that I have ever used the date time functions in either language and come to that, I have never written any Java Script code.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: MudGuard
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:07 AM

And I forgot to add that I myself corrected lots of errors of the style (Year being the last two digits of the real Year)

if (Year < 100) Year += 1900;

over the last two years. In all those places the program would have the variable with the value 1900 today if it hadn't been changed.

MudGuard

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: MudGuard
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 02:03 AM

Alan, it is not a bug in MS IE,
Jon, your reference is outdated.
Standard NOW says getYear gives the four-digit year of the Date object.
Before it just said getYear gives the year of the date. Some browsers generated a two-digit year, some a four-digit year. To be on the safe side, use something like

Year = getYear;
if (Year < 100) Year += 2000;
if (Year < 200) Year += 1900;


MudGuard

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 12:59 AM

Alan, this is what my Java reference says

public int getYear() Note: getYear() is deprecated.

Returns the year represented by this date, minus 1900.

Returns: the year represented by this date, minus 1900. See Also: Calendar

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Alan of Australia
Date: 04 Jan 00 - 12:22 AM

G'day,
I'm sure there would have been real problems if not for the efforts of programmers rewriting code. Today is another test, at least in Oz it's the first day this year banks are open for business (ATMs appear to have had no problems, either with the bug, or people over reacting).

The end of the month will be another test - the first monthly reports of the year.

There appears to be a bug in MS IE. As far as I can see the Java function getYear returns the wrong value. I think it should return the number of years since 1900 (C like). Then the line document.write(1900 + today.getYear()+"") would return the correct year, not 3900.

Netscape gets this right!!!!

Check it out here.

We found this first in Oz folks. Alison noticed it on New Year's day & thought it was the web page, but having looked at the code I think it's IE.

Cheers,
Alan

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Escamillo
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 10:23 PM

This has been a great day. None of my customers (28) have called me for any problem. My competition, instead, (another crazy man who is in the same speciality) had lots of calls because of Y2K failures turned their systems useless this morning. I did not make laugh of them (in public).

Happy 2000 ! USE MAGRE's SYSTEMS ! :))
Andrés Magré

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Margo
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 05:07 PM

My husband, being a systems man, thought that nothing was going to happen. But, he asked me to do the disaster preparedness bit (extra food and water) becasue of our having little ones. He said that the price to pay for being wrong would be too high. I love the way this man thinks! (I better, I married him!) But watch for glitches down the road. There may be real computer problems, and then there are those who would have had the year 2000 come in with a bang (bye bye Seattle Space Needle). So I think being prepared but not worried was like having the best of both worlds! Margo

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: Barbara Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 05:01 PM

There was definitely the possibility of a Y2K bug. I spent many, many weeks leading a project to clear several of our systems of potential date problems. We tested in a "timebox" after running thousands of programs through various utilities, code analyzers and renovation efforts. Yes, we did find a few bugs that required modification. No, it was not all hype. It was a lot of effort on the part of a lot of people that cleared up all our particular software problems (so far).

HOWEVER, the doomsdayers and paranoics and perpetual negative types elevated the problems to the point of hysteria. It is conceivable that terrorists and various other extremists might have acted on the stroke of midnight, but whose midnight?

Y2K bahumbug.

Subject: RE: BS: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: wildlone
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 03:37 PM

Well the very same UK papers that were shouting doom on the 31st are now saying it did'nt happen apart from the same thing your link said.
IMHO it shows that the time and effort put in to stop the Y2K problem worked.
The big problem in the UK on Christmas day was the fact that a lot of mobile phone users had problems connecting as so many had been given as presents,all the new owners trying them out overloaded the system.

Subject: Y2K bug was hyped, but real
From: T in Oklahoma (Okiemockbird)
Date: 03 Jan 00 - 03:15 PM

here is a news clip about what appear to be Y2K-related problems with satellite-telemetry software.

I myself have seen source code for financial software which would have generated spurious results if it hadn't been upgraded over the past few years.

So there was somewhat of a there, there.

T.