In former pure-market-driven days, circa 1800 C.E., a product specification and honest delivery date was announced. I know, I was there. “Stan,” said George Stephenson, “you don't have to be a Rocket scientist to appreciate my latest steam engine.” Rivals would rush to improve the spec and/or beat the “to-market” deadline. Time passes, things change. You know, you've been there. In these PC (pronounced Pursey by Shakespeare) days, software announcements are now announced as soon as someone devises a catchy acronym. The current ploy, successfully borrowed by Microsoft from IBM, tries to discourage the competition.

Part of the problem is that software predictions can be woven into a bland, grandiose, uncontroversial jargon. Who could dispute the value of a globally web-aware, multi-paradigmatic, pattern-sensitive, cross-development architectural environment? (Have I missed your favorite desideratum?)

Nevertheless, deadlines are significant when debating the pros and cons of proprietary and open-software development. The former is often driven and accelerated by corporate job pressures. The latter, alas, relying on “casual” evolution, lacks the “next-week-or-else” imperatives. Replacing the trad Vaporware, we now meet the corporate term Vampireware (related to the Death March syndrome). For once, we can pin down the originator, Trygve Lode, CEO, Lode Data Corporation. Vampireware: A project capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it. The project never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die.

Yet many open and closed projects eventually emerge from the agonizing shadows to our clear screens. Dum codo spero?

Dan Jurca writes from California State University, Hayward:

I'll report Dan's solution anon. Meanwhile, I see you rushing to the sublime Mathematica. We older farts still swear by Napier's Bones.