5 ms·
Always buy in to 64. What was our ancestors' problem?[0] 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
by shrimp_emoji 8y ago
Always buy in to 64. What was our ancestors' problem?[0]
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem
- codeulike 8y agoStorage space was the problem, used to be expensive.
- wnissen 8y agoSpecifically, 32 bits of PDP11 core memory cost on the order of $2, and that was per timestamp. Pretty obvious why you wouldn't go 64-bit unless you had to.
- daemin 8y agoI don't think this cases needed to use 64bits for the clock. Because realistically I would hope that the plane would be serviced more than every 248 days. Therefore each service the computer could be reset or go into a self-check which would reset the computer and therefore prevent the overflow.
- __david__ 8y agoThat's a silly attitude. You're right, the plane should be serviced regularly but that's no reason to build a time bomb in the code.
- daemin 8y agoIt's a pragmatic attitude, especially at a time when embedded devices were far more expensive and limited. Granted the software could have been written to always take a delta and handle overflow of the variable gracefully rather than using the raw value.