Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: #define CLAIMS TRUE
Message-ID: <25D3CF94.13442@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 90 08:23:48 GMT
References: <31.UUL1.3#913@acw.com> <13335@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 40

In article <13335@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> lgm@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (lawrence.g.mayka,ihp,) writes:
>In article <31.UUL1.3#913@acw.com> guthery@acw.com (Scott Guthery) writes:
>>be true until contrary evidence is presented.  When presented with
>>such evidence ... the CAD/CAM disaster at MCC, for example ...
>
>My impression from various reports has been that the MCC CAD/CAM
>incident was a case of unacceptable performance (caused by such
>things as a homegrown, untuned OOP system and a homegrown, untuned
>OODB) and unacceptable politics (caused by the use of Common Lisp
>and Symbolics workstations instead of the politically powerful C++
>and Suns).  I do not recall any disparagement of the CAD/CAM
>system's functionality or the programmers' productivity.  I would
>certainly welcome a more complete, preferably firsthand, account
>of the event and its circumstances.

I can say (second hand) that while I was at MCC (Jan-June '89) I was
told by people who should know that (a) Lisp was part of the problem,
and (b) the *whole* problem was that somebody in MCC management told
the shareholders "Please don't bug us.  We're doing great things and
we will deliver a groovy thing to you someday soon".  When the delivery
day came (so the story was told) the Shareholders looked at the groovy
thing delivered and said (in effect) "That's great. But it's not what
we wanted, needed or expected."  Part of the reason that it was not what
they wanted was that the code was in Lisp, but there were other reasons
also.

Anyway, that is the way the story was told to me.  The moral was that it
was everybody's fault (including the shareholders) because there was a
lack of communication during development.  What would you expect?
Cooperative research is not something that most companies know how to
make work for them yet.

P.S. I don't think that C++ was yet "politically powerful" at the time of
that project.  It is amazing how much difference a year or two can make.

Disclaimer:  I am just repeating a story told to me.  I have no firsthand
knowledge of these events, so if somebody says that I'm full of s*** and
that I don't know what I'm talking about, they are probably right.

// rfg