Financial failure
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: package nicknames
Next: Is Programming Boring?
From: Pascal Bourguignon on 5 Sep 2006 19:43 In comp.risk: Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:45:13 +0100 From: "Martyn Thomas" <martyn(a)thomas-associates.co.uk> Subject: UK 141M-pound benefits computer system shelved "A new computer system used to process benefits payments has been scrapped at a cost to the taxpayer of (UK) 141M pounds, the BBC has learned. The IT project, key to streamlining payments by the UK Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), was quietly axed at an internal meeting last month. ... It is the latest in a long series of computer problems for the government." [Source: BBC News, 5 Sept 2006] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5315280.stm [Phillip Hammond, the Conservatives' shadow work and pensions secretary, is quoted: "It is pretty disgraceful that after two and half years of spending public money on this project, the government has walked away from it. We never hear of somebody actually losing their job because they have failed to implement a project they were responsible for." PGN-ed] Well, can we at least assume they didn't use Lisp? No more than almost all of the other failed software projects? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ "This statement is false." In Lisp: (defun Q () (eq nil (Q)))
From: Adam on 6 Sep 2006 00:24 > Well, can we at least assume they didn't use Lisp? No more than > almost all of the other failed software projects? That assumption would seem a safe bet. My money's on Java. But it would be good to know what language it was. Perhaps its on theregister.co.uk ?
From: Tim Bradshaw on 6 Sep 2006 03:06 On 2006-09-06 00:43:16 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> said: > Well, can we at least assume they didn't use Lisp? No more than > almost all of the other failed software projects? Yes. Also that the reason projects like this succeed or fail has nothing to do with the language choice.
From: =?utf-8?B?VGlhcm7DoW4gw5MgQ29ycsOhaW4=?= on 7 Sep 2006 13:30 Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes: > On 2006-09-06 00:43:16 +0100, Pascal Bourguignon <pjb(a)informatimago.com> said: > >> Well, can we at least assume they didn't use Lisp? No more than >> almost all of the other failed software projects? > > Yes. Also that the reason projects like this succeed or fail has > nothing to do with the language choice. I'm not so sure. At lot of these enterprise-y projects collapse under the weight of their own technology infrastructure, and the rigidity of the technologies used prevents a re-design (or makes it politically infeasible) once a certain point has been reached. They tend to be the last word in over-specified, under-thought, inflexible rubbish, in my weary opinion. -- Tiarnán
From: Charlton Wilbur on 7 Sep 2006 15:32
ocorrain(a)yahoo.com (Tiarn?n ? Corr?in) writes: > I'm not so sure. At lot of these enterprise-y projects collapse under > the weight of their own technology infrastructure, and the rigidity of > the technologies used prevents a re-design (or makes it politically > infeasible) once a certain point has been reached. They tend to be the > last word in over-specified, under-thought, inflexible rubbish, in my > weary opinion. The fact that they don't use Lisp is a symptom of this, not the cause. Technical solutions rarely solve social problems, and this is a social problem. Managers like to manage, and like to control. This means that, if unchecked, they will dictate every detail of the project, even before starting to build it. And once it's specified, it can't change, because that means losing face: there seems to be manager-virtue in never changing one's mind, because that is an admission that somehow calls into question all of the manager's other decisions. It's not the rigidity of the technology that prevents a redesign; it's the rigidity of the project management. The rigidity of the technology is nothing more than a recapitulation of the rigidity of the management, and throwing Lisp into the mix would not solve the problem. Charlton |