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=1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5669 comp.software-eng:5981
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!jls
From: jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reserve Demobilization System Built Around Reused Ada Code
Message-ID: <1991Jun15.002253.10735@netcom.COM>
Date: 15 Jun 91 00:22:53 GMT
References: <676362409.27@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> <1991Jun11.062703.15671@netcom.COM> <PCG.91Jun14183250@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  UNIX System {408 241-9760 guest}
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>jls> My definition of reuse is quite simple: any time you didn't have to
>jls> write a line of code, you reused it. This may not be the definition
>jls> of reuse people envision when they use the term "reuse", but in the
>jls> end all that truly matters is the COST--a line saved is a line
>jls> earned.

>But this does not capture what people "really" mean by reuse. Surely
>then using a DBMS, OS, math library, is "reuse" then, by your
>definition.

Indeed! And what other term SHOULD we apply to using a DBMS instead of
writing our own? See, that's what's so ironic about reuse--like AI,
as soon as someone achieves a significant SUCCESS in the area of reuse,
people change the rules ("No, THAT'S not really reuse...that's just
using off-the-shelf software..."). The whole IDEA of reuse is to get
to the point where you yank a bunch of preexisting software off a shelf
and lash it together with a bit of glue, in exactly the same way that
any other engineering discipline makes use of preexisting parts, subsystems,
cards, chips, pistons, or what have you. We build software the way people
built flintlock rifles before what's-his-name (damn!--not my day for
Jeopardy questions--what was the name of the guy?) realized that building
N identical triggers as a way to help build N identical rifles might be
a good idea. We're treating software like a custom built item EVERY SINGLE
TIME we build something. This is, not to put too fine a point on it, stupid.

>For example the use of 4GLs, DBMSes, X windows, and math/GKS/stats/...
>libraries to me it is all reuse. Reuse is much more prevalent than
>people think, thanks to old fashioned concepts like servers (process
>based reuse) and libraries (module based reuse).

Well, it appear then that we're in violent AGREEMENT, since that's
exactly how I define reuse too.

>Usually, I suspect, reuse is meant to be applied to the narrow case
>where one does custom sw development, which is no longer the case in
>most commercial installation; nearly everybody nowadays is using DBMSes
>and enjoying the benefits of not reimplementing from scratch data
>management programs.

Again, no argument from me. I'm getting this weird feeling that you
wrote a 50 line post agreeing in total with my original post, and I
just wrote a 50 line post agreeing with yours. Or did I miss something?
-- 
*** LIMITLESS SOFTWARE, Inc: 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++.    *