>>22611660

>>22611652

COBOL didn't have a date field, except for a few Microsoft builds. Most still had a 6 digit numeric field which was left up to the programmer to decide how to use it.

Because of the year 2000, and difficulties to convert database files, local conventions started using a cut-off date to decide if a date would be in 1900 or in 2000. And that depended upon the use cases, e.g. there would be a difference between birthdates and order dates.

So, the only reason why a program would use this, would be a local program convention for some reason, but not a general one for Cobol.

>>22611679

When I worked in Cobol (1984-2000), a date was just represented by 6 digits, and we had to do date calculations ourselves (or maybe use predefined routines which had to be cut and pasted).

The conversion would have likely been done by reading the 6 digit number, then converting it, then writing it back. At the same time the date encode/decode routines would be modified to handle a more suitable date range.

>>22611721

>>22611695

>>22611740

That wasn't my post moran. Lrn2ID.

Also, what are you like 12? pwned? Who uses that term any more?

Are you the best that they can afford? If so we're winning bigly.

>>22611752

kek

>>22611756

And the left's REEEing continues to intensify.

>>22611762

I didn't censor anyone, nor do I have the ability to. Once again, you're a moran.

>>22611913

clicked and kekk'd.

>>22611971

Not that anon, but what's wrong with cat pics?