Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!tut!tukki!sakkinen From: sakkinen@tukki.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel Subject: delivery schedules Message-ID: <1448@tukki.jyu.fi> Date: 10 Oct 89 09:09:45 GMT References: <204@eiffel.UUCP> Reply-To: sakkinen@jytko.jyu.fi (Markku Sakkinen) SAKKINEN@FINJYU.bitnet (alternative) Organization: University of Jyvaskyla, Finland Lines: 34 In article 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