Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!src.honeywell.com!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!sialis!orbit!marilyn!shawn
From: shawn@marilyn.UUCP (Shawn P. Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: UUCP status files and wierd dates - revisted.
Message-ID: <114@marilyn.UUCP>
Date: 28 Nov 90 14:18:19 GMT
References: <736@dynasys.UUCP> <803@sci34hub.UUCP> <754@dynasys.UUCP> <1990Nov22.024607.7474@decuac.dec.com> <756@dynasys.UUCP>
Reply-To: shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org (Shawn P. Stanley)
Organization: Litfal
Lines: 27

In article <756@dynasys.UUCP> jessea@dynasys.UUCP () writes:
>How much total resources - both individual systems and all unix systems
>put together - would be saved if we only had to calculate a date using
>a maximum of approxiamately 31536000 seconds instead of that astronomical
>sum above.  Would it really make that much of a difference?

I don't believe so, and for this reason: The math necessary to convert a
date/time from a number like that is not any more complicated for one
year or twenty years.  Since the number for one year is big enough to be
stored in a "long", as is the value for twenty years, there is no savings
in data type.  The number of bits to shift for doing a multiply or divide
is the same.

I have other reasons for liking the current system.  Since everyone agrees
to it across the board (Unix to Unix), there are no date/time conflicts
when communicating with other systems or using backup disks, etc.  You
don't have to worry about a backup being on "1988 time", or a system you're
talking to around the first of the year still being on the previous year's
time.

One thing you have to consider is that calculation is only necessary when
converting the number to display format.  Don't picture your system as
crunching away endlessly, calculating the date/time over and over again
using time-consuming math.  That's not what's happening.
--
Shawn P. Stanley         shawn@marilyn.marilyn.mn.org
bungia!marilyn!shawn     {rosevax,crash}!orbit!marilyn!shawn