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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!jls
From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)
Subject: Re: Reserve Demobilization System Built Around Reused Ada Code
Message-ID: <1991Jun11.062703.15671@netcom.COM>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest} 
References: <676362409.27@egsgate.FidoNet.Org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1991 06:27:03 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>Should we call it reuse
>when the end user is different, and otherwise call it enhancement?  Depends
>on
>what techno-political games you want to play...

My definition of reuse is quite simple: any time you didn't have to write
a line of code, you reused it. This may not be the definition of reuse
people envision when they use the term "reuse", but in the end all that
truly matters is the COST--a line saved is a line earned. If you treat the
entire software development process like a black box, then from the outside
of the box it matters little why the box is more efficient than other
software development boxes--all that truly matters is that it IS more
efficient. If the box is more efficient because of "mere" software
enhancement instead of "pure" reuse, so be it. It degenerates (like so
many things) into an argument over semantics.

-- 
**************** JIM SHOWALTER, jls@netcom.com, (408) 243-0630 ****************
*Proven solutions to software problems. Consulting and training on all aspects*
*of software development. Management/process/methodology. Architecture/design/*
*reuse. Quality/productivity. Risk reduction. EFFECTIVE OO usage. Ada/C++.    *