What if we have a 0 - 3 outcome?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : HumptyDumptyY2K : One Thread

Ed noted in his concept for the HDY2K project that senarios 1, 2 and 3 would not warrant any discussion. I was thinking that, if it turns out we do have only a 1, 2 or 3, it would be a very interesting discussion to determine why. Based on software engineering past, it doesn't make sense that we could fix all the code and hit the deadline. Ed's newest essay on his home page points this out. So if it turns out everything IS pretty much fixed, then why? Here are some potential thoughts:

1 - In my experience, most software projects go behind schedule due to scope creep or use of new technology. Those aren't really an issue with a Y2K project. 2 - Perhaps many systems won't be compliant, but will still function well enough to fulfill their essential purpose. I have worked for years on systems full of bugs that continue to function.

Here is the biggest potential reason I see - perhaps there simply aren't that many truely critical computer applications. A company might have 500 applications but perhaps only a handful are really necessary to run the business. Perhaps Y2K has shown business which systems REALLY matter.

Just some thoughts. Ed, I think that regardless of the outcome you should write the HDY2K book. And if the outcome is 1, 2, or 3, I think it would be a great service you would do us software engineers to analyze why it turned out that way when all our experience told us it shouldn't have.

Does anyone else have some thoughts on why we might have a 1, 2, or 3 outcome? Do you think there is some good discussion to be had on why the outcome was a 1, 2, or 3 if it turns out to be the case?

-Todd

-- Todd Everett (75121.2714@compuserve.com), December 29, 1999

Answers

We're already living in the 2 scenario.

-- Pearlie Sweetcake (storestuff@home.now), December 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ