2038: Only 21 years away

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by dboreham on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @12:09PM (#13923527)

I'm not convinced that the problem was considered in those terms. Imagine that there was a meeting where someone said "I'm going to make time_t 64-bits because if I don't it will mean all software will break in unfortunate ways in the year 2038", and someone else said "Yeah, that's something to be concerned about but we can't do that because memory and disk space is at present too expensive to allow it". Well, I'm confident that no such meeting occurred because nobody back in the early 70's was thinking that way at all. The thinking would be more like "Ok, the last OS I worked on used a 32-bit int, so ho hum...there we are... time_t, move on to code the next thing...".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by jerf on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @12:34PM (#13923805)

Yes, people absolutely cared about bits and bytes, because they weren't very many of them. (Programmers weren't necessarily thinking of them as monetarily expensive, because even today you don't just go slamming more RAM in to your machine if you need more. The problem is that there were only so many of them.) You could still see the residual hacker attitudes even five years ago, though I'd have to call it mostly dead now. But they were absolutely counting bits and bytes all the time, by default, in a way few programmers nowadays can appreciate.

It's why we have "creat" instead of "create", it's why file permissions are tightly packed into three octal digits (as one of the old systems Unix ran on was actually a fan of 36-bit machine words, so 9 bits divided things more evenly at the time). It's why C strings are null-terminated, instead of the more sensible in every way length-delimited, except that length delimited strings require one extra byte if you want to support the size range between 256-65535. Yes, the programmers of that time would rather have one extra byte per string than a safe string library. Pre-OSX Mac programmers can tell you all about dealing with one-byte-length-delimited strings and how often they ended up with things truncated at 255 chars accidentally.

In an era where "mainframes" shipped with dozens of kilobytes of RAM, yeah, they cared.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by callalex on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @12:24AM (#13928452)

>even today you just go slamming more RAM into the machine if you need it

Hmm, every software gig I've had in the past 5 years that's exactly what I've been expected to do because the extra ten bucks a month for a bigger VM is wayyy less expensive than engineering time. Interesting times.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by Nition on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @05:08PM (#13926229)

I don't think the previous user is saying that no-one cared about space, just that no-one cared about 2038. So that conversation wouldn't have happened anyway.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by dboreham on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @12:01PM (#13931991)

Indeed. There was no carefully considered trade-off made between storage space and brokenness in 70 years time. Nobody thought like that. Nobody would have expected their code and data to be remotely relevant that far into the future. People wrote code according to present-day norms which would have included using a 32-bit integer for time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by leoedin on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @05:32PM (#13926463)

Whenever I do embedded work with counters, every time I assign a variable that has a possibility of overflowing I do a little mental count about how likely it is to overflow. That's part of of the software development process.

They may not have had a meeting about it, but I think it's exceedingly unlikely that whoever decided to assign a 32 bit int to store time didn't give some consideration to the date range it could represent. Otherwise how would they know not to use a 16 bit int?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by dboreham on Wednesday March 22, 2017 @12:03PM (#13932006)

They didn't design it in a vacuum. They had worked on other OS'es already that used 32-bit ints with a 1 second quantum and they (probably subconsciously) thought that if it had been good enough for those other systems it was good enough for Unix.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:2038: Only 21 years away by cat199 on Tuesday March 21, 2017 @01:39PM (#13924423)

PDP-11:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDP-11_architecture#CPU_regist...

5x 16 bit registers.

So ability to operate on 1x 64 bit number and some change if loaded all at once.

How many instructions do you think it would take to add/subtract 2x 64 bit integers? vs 2x 32 bit integers on such a machine?

Not to mention having to implement and debug this logic in assembly on a teletype vs using a native instruction.. (see "Extended Instruction Set (EIS)" in same link)

Noone would have considered 64 bits at all because it would have been a huge hassle and not worth it, even beyond thinking ahead in this way..

Besides.. if 'the last OS I worked on' was probably the 1st or second interactive timesharing system ever written, give or take (e.g MULTICS/ITS), and I worked on it at a low level, because thats what people did, chances are, I might have talked to the person who came up with the idea on how to store the time on that system.. who conceivably could be the 2nd or 3rd person ever to actually implement this, ever.. And if this is the case, don't you think, that person would have thought about it somewhat?

Programmers at that time were many times much better at these things than now..

(which itself was posted in 1983 concerning the same topic...)

I'd suggest spinning up some SIM-H VM's and mucking around for a while with early unices (v5,v7,32V,4.3BSD), and probably ITS or TOPS-10/TWENEX as well ... it is quite illuminating and very insightful.

[ Parent | on HN ]