Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet
From: tmkk@uiuc.edu (K. Khan)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Re: Clipper 5.01 bugs
Message-ID: <1991May17.175246.11348@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 17 May 91 17:52:46 GMT
References: <29176@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991May15.210031.23270@pegasus.com> <1991May7.235644.28744@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> <1991May14.170431.1509@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1991May16.135821.5096@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 28


In article <29176@hydra.gatech.EDU> jgb@prism.gatech.EDU (James G. Baker) writes:
>
>Should I listen to
>his advice or the ranting on of someone who hits one snag and throws his
>arms up in the air?

ONE snag? You don't know much about Clipper, do you? This snag is merely the
latest one of many. :-(
  
>There will always be bugs.

True. The goal here is "reasonably bug free". The initial release of 5.0
clearly missed that goal.

>Are you saying that MS should have waited until v3.3 was ready rather
>than releasing 3.0, 3.1., 3.2?  Wordperfect 5.0 was a bad move?  Granted,
>DOS 4.0 was premature, but no one has a gun to your head.

dBase IV was premature, also. In fact, I'm sure we could come up with a
long list of products which were released before they were really ready.
Just because it's a common practice doesn't make it good or right.

I'm saying that instead of rushing their (already late) product to
market prematurely, Nantucket should have waited, gotten rid of more bugs,
and THEN released a reasonably bug-free compiler. Of course, they felt
additional pressures due to the behind-schedule status of 5.0, so they
chose not to wait.