home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.lang.c:16733 comp.software-eng:4373
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!claird
- From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.software-eng
- Subject: Corporate profile (was: Will we keep ignoring this productivity issue?)
- Message-ID: <Bxx4pF.Auy@NeoSoft.com>
- Date: 18 Nov 92 15:36:50 GMT
- Article-I.D.: NeoSoft.Bxx4pF.Auy
- References: <BxnpJL.BvM@cs.uiuc.edu> <1992Nov17.003350.2649@tcsi.com> <1992Nov17.165937.10874@sei.cmu.edu>
- Followup-To: comp.software-eng
- Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Nov17.165937.10874@sei.cmu.edu> bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) writes:
- .
- .
- .
- >This might not be the best approach for the leading/bleeding edge software
- >company (MS, Borland, etc.) but for the average business that uses software
- >to support their primary business, I suspect it works well. Of course,
- .
- .
- .
- Serious question: is Microsoft at the leading edge?
-
- My impression is that Microsoft products do *not*
- exhibit much technical innovation; architecturally,
- they are more on the monumental, than on the artistic,
- side. Is this what others see? I've also been led
- to believe that Microsoft is quite ... relaxed in
- their practices of software engineering; they rely
- heavily on youngsters, they code away with relative
- abandon, and they don't meet their own goals for
- resource allocation (of time, especially). Anyone
- know? Perhaps focussing on specifics of a high-
- profile case will help us understand some of the
- productivity issues we're debating.
- --
-
- Cameron Laird
- claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 267 7966
- claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net) +1 713 996 8546
-