Re: Impossible Database Design?

"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1147879954.096089.77300_at_i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> mAsterdam wrote:
> > Marshall wrote:
> > >
> > > Seconded. Why not state a more realistic requirement, such as:
> > > support events up to 1000 years in the future? 1000 is much,
> > > much less than infinite, and so has the advantage of being actually
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > Also remember Scott McNealy's comment: "Most software
> > > has the shelf life of a banana." Your software probably won't
> > > still be in use in even 10 years.
> >
> > Also remember that knowing that people actually built
> > software with that assumption led to the millennium paranoia.
>
> It is a fair point. But that was people building systems with less
> than 50 years of headroom. It turns out some systems last
> that long. I am fairly confident that no software built during
> my lifetime will be in use 100,000 years from now; probably
> not even 1000 years from now.

They don't last that long because they are built by someone like you. :-)

> > Arbitrary limits where none are logically
> > necessary have quite a track-record (640Kb anyone?).

> If you don't put any limit in the dates you can specify, you
> still have the physical limits of the computer, as Bob pointed
> out. I think there are a lot of fine compromises; there are a
> *lot* of distinct values in a 64 bit number.

No. They have those limits because they are built by someone like you. :-) Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 11:53:41 CEST