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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ed0e0a641b1a05b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-23 23:04:50 PST
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada software reuse
Message-ID: <17252@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 24 Mar 93 06:51:04 GMT
References: <1993Mar18.154215.27544@unix.brighton.ac.uk>
 <SRCTRAN.93Mar19103844@world.std.com>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Date: 1993-03-24T06:51:04+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <SRCTRAN.93Mar19103844@world.std.com>, srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian) writes:
>     I argue that as long as a language has the basic features of a decent
> syntax, modularity, and tools/syntax for argument checking, requirements
> that most languages meet, then the language will support reuse.  And given
> the success of "primitive" languages in supporting reuse, the structure of
> a language itself is a marginal factor in promoting/discouraging reuse.

Basically, there are two key steps in software reuse.
    1.	FINDING some software to reuse.
    2.	ADAPTING it to your environment.
Of existing well-known languages, Ada and Standard ML are streets ahead
of the competition when it comes to step 2.

This leaves step 1.  One of the few languages to address this issue
is Common Lisp.  (See section 25.2 of Common Lisp, the Language, 2nd ed.)
By all accounts this is the hardest step, and it isn't clear that any
programming language has a special advantage here.