From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e80a1497a689d8a5 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert Dewar Subject: Re: Ada GC (was Re: Ammo-zilla) Date: 1999/11/12 Message-ID: <80hauu$q88$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 547754627 References: <38120FAF.945ADD7D@hso.link.com><7uutgd$87h$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <19991024.18033546@db3.max5.com><38189268.43EB150F@mail.earthlink.net><86ogdjtdwz.fsf@ppp-115-70.villette.club-internet.fr><7vadsp$8q61@news.cis.okstate.edu> <1999Oct28.221910.1@eisner><7vb3c4$8a21@news.cis.okstate.edu> <7vhg2n$7ht$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vkjea$b34$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vncgr$bpg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vqd45$iiq$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7vvroo$grr$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <80c9fq$2qn$1@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net> <3829D562.5F102A83@callnetuk.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x30.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Nov 12 15:15:46 1999 GMT X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-11-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3829D562.5F102A83@callnetuk.com>, Nick Roberts wrote: > And, as a corollary, customers need to be educated into > rejecting software with a 'bug' in it just as diligently as > they would reject any other product with a defect. Well, two points here. One, to the extent that a bug reflects a difference between the spec and the implementation, people are not that diligent, and for good reason, insisting on defect free products would increase their cost. Automobiles for instance virtually always have delivery defects (See Consumer Reports, where it is quite typical to see something like "this car was delivered in excellent shape, there were only 17 defects, only one of them significant"). Two, to the extent that a bug reflects something that people don't like in the *design*, I think they are often more diligent than for other products. You don't generally expect a car maker to send you a new dashboard with the speedometer positioned so you can see if it you are only 5'4" tall, but in the software world, people expect this kind of responsiveness. They don't always get it, but the expectations that software can be improved in this way are greater than for many other products. At the same time, I think we all agree that the practice of rushing things to market with entirely excessive numbers of defects should be punished in the software area by consumer rejection at least as energetically as for other fields. The PC Junior was a bunch of junk, it rightly failed in the marketplace. By contrast, the decrepit version of DOS that Microsoft delivered for use on the 286, which was incapable of taking advantage of the 16 meg addressing and protected capabilities of this chip was an abomination. But it succeeded in the marketplace, despite the presence of a far superior product from DR Research (Flex OS) that took full advantage of the chip. Why? Perhaps this has something to do with the stifling of innovation that the recent finding of facts in the Microsoft case describes in detail. Perhaps it is because consumers are not educated to expect reasonable products in the software area? WHo knows? But either way, it is indeed unacceptable. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.