11–20 of 22 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're slowly running out of time in 32 bits. It would be good to have another standard measure of time that fits in 32 bits and is agreed upon long before the old one expires
Why not use a 64 bit value?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're slowly running out of time in 32 bits. It would be good to have another standard measure of time that fits in 32 bits and is agreed upon long before the old one expires
How will we know which way to decode time data, then? You can't use timestamps, and adding an extra signing bit defeats the purpose.
Great idea - for shiny new systems, at new companies, that will never see any date older than Jan 1 2020. But for other use cases - not so great.
There's no reason you can't use a 64-bit value in a 32-bit system. Much simpler to access the 64-bit value as two 32-bit words than propose a whole new confusing and ambiguous system.
In terms of current-time coding, the only time that second hi-order word would be used is when the lo-order word overflows, and on initialisation of the 64-bit variable. And if needs must, it could even be a compiled-in value, seeing it will only change once in every 68 years.
Obviously if you move toward 64 bits, as most systems have already done, you don't have a problem.
So if you want to stick to signed 32 bits, let's instead agree to restart counting 32 bit UNIX timestamps for the new epoch at exactly Sun Feb 7 06:28:16 AM 2106 UTC.
Sure, it's not a very round number in human terms, but has the advantage of requiring significantly less implementation.
Of course you still have the same problem of knowing which epoch you are in, but that's intrinsic to the problem when you only have 32 bits.
Sounds a bit like a solution in search of a problem. There's no reason you can't use a 64-bit value in a 32-bit system. Much simpler to access the 64-bit value as two 32-bit words than propose a whole new confusing and ambiguous system. In terms of current-time coding, the only time that second hi-order word would be used is when the lo-order word overflows, and on initialisation of the 64-bit variable. And if needs…
It's not true that it's much simpler to work with two 32bit words for a date than working with simply restarted clock. Basic arithmetics cannot be used reliably so every operation must go through a library like i.e. bigint used to require. This complicates the system and the goal of having a reliable 32bit date format in the future is for simplicity.
here's an idea: instead of projecting a human concept of the roundness of a date onto the technical solution, let's use a value optimized for efficient implementation. Obviously if you move toward 64 bits, as most systems have already done, you don't have a problem. So if you want to stick to signed 32 bits, let's instead agree to restart counting 32 bit UNIX timestamps for the new epoch at exactly Sun Feb 7 06:28:16…
here's an idea: instead of projecting a human concept of the roundness of a date onto the technical solution, let's use a value optimized for efficient implementation. Obviously if you move toward 64 bits, as most systems have already done, you don't have a problem. So if you want to stick to signed 32 bits, let's instead agree to restart counting 32 bit UNIX timestamps for the new epoch at exactly Sun Feb 7 06:28:16…
How does it require less implementation? It's just another arbitrary point in time and 2106 is too late.
Any system of assigning epochs needs to have some method to determine which epoch you are referring to, so that's no different no matter if the scheme starts in 2020, 1970 2040, etc. So just use the natural modulus of 2^32 if you are using signed 2^32 to represent dates. When it rolls over, you're in a new epoch.
I'm kind of trying to point out that if you have a calendar that repeats after every 2^32 seconds, and you have more than 2^32 seconds to count, your problem is that you have too small of a counter, not wherever the arbitrary start point is - changing that is silly and just adds complication.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does it require less implementation? It's just another arbitrary point in time and 2106 is too late.
You miss the point. On Jan 19 2038 at 03:14:07 UTC, the very next second of a signed (2's complement) 32 bit time will roll over from +2^31-1 to -2^31. Which happens to be -2^31 seconds before Sun Feb 7 06:28:16 AM 2106 UTC. So if you were just to interpret those negative dates as relative to 2106, you are good to go in 2038 without changing anything. Any system of assigning epochs needs to have some method to determ…
In 99.9% cases there will be no need to keep track of the epoch just like the current computers don't look before 1970. In rare cases if its required the epoch can obviously be stored in another byte.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You miss the point. On Jan 19 2038 at 03:14:07 UTC, the very next second of a signed (2's complement) 32 bit time will roll over from +2^31-1 to -2^31. Which happens to be -2^31 seconds before Sun Feb 7 06:28:16 AM 2106 UTC. So if you were just to interpret those negative dates as relative to 2106, you are good to go in 2038 without changing anything. Any system of assigning epochs needs to have some method to determ…
Using negative values would only complicate things and the goal is to have a simple solution for not losing convenience of having a unix timestamp that fits in 32bits and is very straightforward. In 99.9% cases there will be no need to keep track of the epoch just like the current computers don't look before 1970. In rare cases if its required the epoch can obviously be stored in another byte.
how so? as it happens computers handle this automatically when using a signed 32 bit integer. It's easy to implement because there is literally no extra work.
> In 99.9% cases there will be no need to keep track of the epoch just like the current computers don't look before 1970
so then why would you not suggest using unsigned 32 bits and going straight to 2106 that way?
I think you need to take some time and get comfortable with both 2s complement and modular arithmetic to understand the right trades for a solution to 2038 and why creating yet a new date standard of 2020 isn't a better idea than what's already been done and several other things that could have been. There are a lot of other gotchas and design decisions. That's why what I suggest is somewhat tongue in cheek and not a serious proposal. But it's objectively better in all criteria than starting again with 2020 (or 2000, or ...).
I leave you with: https://xkcd.com/927/