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=2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!nuchat!buster!brain.UUCP!chuck
From: chuck@brain.UUCP (Chuck Shotton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Reserve Demobilization System Built Around Reused Ada Code
Message-ID: <0D010010.gk4ndi@brain.UUCP>
Date: 30 May 91 18:30:53 GMT
Reply-To: chuck@brain.UUCP
Organization: BIAP Systems
X-Mailer: uAccess - Mac Release: 1.0.4a
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <1991May30.004737.24473@netcom.COM>, jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:
> >This sounds like a simple enhancement job, not "new" development. 90% code
> >reuse is more like 10% enhancement and maintenance.
> 
> But this is precisely the direction we SHOULD be trying to head when we
> develop software! I can't think of a very strong business case for NOT
> reusing 800KSLOC whenever it is possible to do so, can you? Were that
> MORE projects achieved 90% code reuse, particularly if my taxes are
> paying for them.
> 
I don't disagree one bit. What I hate to see is another contractor horn-blowing
what was ultimately a rehashing of existing code. It was certainly NOT a
properly engineered system that drew on an established repository of reusable
code. It is misleading to the customer and the industry at large to portray
such development efforts as true reuse. I am NOT demeaning the achievement.
Let's just call a spade a spade. Maybe "rapid tailoring" or "rapid reengineering"
is a more suitable term for this type of approach.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Shotton                 Internet:   cshotton@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu