Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!princeton!njsmu!mccc!shevett
From: shevett@mccc.edu (Dave Shevett)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: CLIPPER eclipses dBASE bugs: too many to mention!
Summary: Oh, please!
Message-ID: <1991May2.183238.13865@mccc.edu>
Date: 2 May 91 18:32:38 GMT
References: <16244.2816c071@levels.sait.edu.au> <1991Apr29.170439.10591@dbase.a-t.com>
Organization: The College On The Other Side of U. S. Route 1
Lines: 61

In article <1991Apr29.170439.10591@dbase.a-t.com> tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts) writes:
=In article <16244.2816c071@levels.sait.edu.au> marwk@levels.sait.edu.au writes:
= [comments about Clipper 5.0 being released prematurely]
=
=[...] there can come a time when you have to ship
=something, _anything_, just to keep the payroll met and the doors
=open.  

I agree with this 100%, to a certain extent.  However, Nantucket planned
this release for, what, 2 years before it left the offices?  In that time,
didn't it dawn on them that they *may* not make the deadline, so let's
cut back the final version, and get something out that works? (See Novell's
software release system.  SFT wasn't working, so they kept bouncing it
back revs.  They put something out, and it *worked*, even though it was
not what was originally announced.)

=date and time stamps on the original 5.0 disks are exactly one year
=later than the ship date predicted by a highly visible Nantucket
=executive the year before.  

This I think it hitting very close to the mark.  Why did Nantucket announce
a release date for a product that was, obviously, nowhere *near* 
ready for release?  Was this executive completely blind?

=Let's face it - dBASE IV 1.0 hurt Ashton-Tate greatly by being
=released in a less-than-perfect condition.  On the other hand,
=the amount of changes involved from III+ to IV represented one or
=two quantum leaps in complexity from any revision of any dBASE or
=dBASE-like product that had been done before

I'm sorry, but this is where I almost coughed up my coffee.  The
number of changes from III+ to IV are not relevant.  There is little
code included in IV that can call it's origins from dBase III.  I call
your attention to FoxPro.  It was released virtually bug free, 
was a complete re-write of FoxBase, and is about to be supplanted with
FoxPro 2.0, another complete overhaul of the core database code.  I 
think what we can derive from this is that it's not the complexity of
the code that causes problems, it's how it is managed and marketed
from the top.

=To the contrary, every developer I know hates glitches in their
=work and tries as hard as they can to eliminate them.

I agree.  This is working from the 'developer's point of view.  The
problem is, too many corporations let the lawyers and accountants start
running the company, and it loses it's shine.  Example: Fox vs A-T,
Borland vs Lotus, Apple vs everybody.

=But, this has gotten away from comp.databases, perhaps.  

Indeed, but I am curious how others perceive this 'who decides when
to release a product' problem.  

=Tom Rombouts  Torrance 'Tater  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com

 ,___,    .--------------------------------------------------------------.
 \o.o/   | Dave Shevett     | Unix-PC BOF | The shortest distance between |
( \_/ )  | Lawrenceville,NJ |  TCF  '91   | two puns is a Straight Line   |
 |_|_|   | shevett@mccc.EDU | Apr 20-21st |                -- Doc Webster |
          '--------------------------------------------------------------'