sakkinen@tukki.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) (10/10/89)
In article <JWG1.89Oct9120114@bunny.gte.com> jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) writes: >In article <204@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: >> >> I apologize to anyone whose personal plans were disrupted by the delay >> in putting out 2.2 and I hope that the result is worth the wait. >> > >[...] >[...] If suppliers do not >meet their ship dates, it can have a serious ripple effect that can >cost dollars and jobs. Also, multiple slips are anathema. Please >consider this the next time a release date is set. You are right, of course, but are ISE among the worst sinners in this business (I don't know how much late their release is)? Consider AT&T and C++. There is a paper by Bjarne Stroustrup entitled "The Evolution of C++: 1985 to 1987", given at the USENIX C++ Workshop in November 1987. Most of the new things mentioned there were implemented only in Release 2.0 of AT&T's C++ translator. Still in spring 1988, B.S. supposed the release would be available during that summer. Now we know it was released in the summer of 1989! In fact, can you remember _any_ occasion when a computer manufacturer or third-party software supplier has promised a new version or a new software product at a given point of time and then really delivered on schedule? I have or know bad experiences with Digital, Sun, and Relational Technology, at least. Markku Sakkinen Department of Computer Science University of Jyvaskyla (a's with umlauts) Seminaarinkatu 15 SF-40100 Jyvaskyla (umlauts again) Finland
afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) (10/11/89)
In article <1448@tukki.jyu.fi> sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative) writes: >In article <JWG1.89Oct9120114@bunny.gte.com> jwg1@gte.com (James W. Gish) writes: >>In article <204@eiffel.UUCP> bertrand@eiffel.UUCP (Bertrand Meyer) writes: >>> >>>[research on Eiffel delays release] >>[...] If suppliers do not >>meet their ship dates, it can have a serious ripple effect that can >>cost dollars and jobs. Also, multiple slips are anathema. Please >>consider this the next time a release date is set. > >You are right, of course, but are ISE among the worst sinners in this >business (I don't know how much late their release is)? >Consider AT&T and C++. There is a paper by Bjarne Stroustrup entitled >"The Evolution of C++: 1985 to 1987", given at the USENIX C++ Workshop >in November 1987. Most of the new things mentioned there were >implemented only in Release 2.0 of AT&T's C++ translator. >Still in spring 1988, B.S. supposed the release would be available >during that summer. Now we know it was released in the summer of 1989! Active research is a different case all together. >In fact, can you remember _any_ occasion when a computer manufacturer >or third-party software supplier has promised a new version or >a new software product at a given point of time and then really >delivered on schedule? Yes, I can remember many occasions in recent memory. (e-mail me if you want concrete examples) There has to be a distinction between products that are on the leading edge of the research part of R&D. Eiffel and C++ are evolving languages which will settle down once a large user community exists. The solution to these problems is to issue bug fixes but delay announcement of a new version until it enters beta testing (no new additions planned). It may be a long time between versions but products can be delivered on time. If a company keeps a lid on rumours and speculation; issues an announcement when all development has ceased (only bug fixes) there is no problem. Once again, in "research" type endeavours there is a more open manner with regard to ongoing development. The point of this is that ISE is a growing company that is having some growing pains but they are learning from their mistakes. Anthony //// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu //// "I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2