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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5704 comp.software-eng:6007
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!goya!turia!esink
From: esink@turia.dit.upm.es (Eric Wayne Sink)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reserve Demobilization System Built Around Re
Summary: What's the diff between use and reuse ?
Keywords: reuse use
Message-ID: <1991Jun18.115820.18363@dit.upm.es>
Date: 18 Jun 91 11:58:20 GMT
References: <676362409.27@egsgate.FidoNet.Org> <1991Jun11.062703.15671@netcom.COM> <1991Jun15.010746.12768@netcom.COM> <1991Jun14.231725.1@east.pima.edu> <1991Jun17.145146.5307@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: @dit.upm.es
Reply-To: e-sink@uiuc.edu
Organization: dit
Nntp-Posting-Host: turia.dit.upm.es
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1991Jun17.145146.5307@m.cs.uiuc.edu> johnson@cs.uiuc.EDU (Ralph Johnson) writes:
>
[stuff deleted]
>EMACS is more reusable than vi because it comes with an extension
>language and can be completely reprogrammed.  Lots of people use it
>as a user interface manager.  Similarly, DBMS's, spreadsheets, and OS's
>differ in reusability.  Nevertheless, they can all be considered
>reusable software.
[more stuff deleted]
>
>Ralph Johnson -- U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dept. of C.S.

What irks me about some of this is the rapidly graying distinction
between 'reuse' and 'use'.  From a research perspective, most people
will agree with the idea that reusable software is hard to make.
Some would even say that USABLE software is hard to make.  But where
are we going to draw the line between these two ideas ?  If we make the
idea of 'reuse' too wide, it ceases to be quite so interesting.  For
example, I'm using a terminal program called Telex to access a Sun
to write this message.  Come to think of it, I used Telex yesterday too.
Actually, I've used Telex EVERY day for months !  However, I consider
this to be software USE, certainly not reuse.  On the other end,
a linkable library of routines offers me reuse.  A collection of well
written routines with source offers me reuse.  It's the middle ground
that bugs me.  Is there a fine line between use/reuse when talking about
a spreadsheet ?  Is Emacs REUSABLE just because it has a programming
language built in, or is it just a whole lot more USABLE than vi ?

I'll admit I don't know how to put this distinction into a well worded
definition.  Perhaps USE is associated with a USER ?  Therefore, REUSE
occurs when software is used by a non-USER ? (ugly definition)
Perhaps, REUSE occurs when software is employed to develop more
software (but what do you call a compiler then ?)

I honestly don't know, but I haven't seen a definition I like yet.
That's why I ask questions. :-)

Eric W. Sink                     | "If no one is criticizing |Opinions
Departamento de Telematica       | your work, it is possible |mine -
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid| that you are not doing    |all of
esink@turia.dit.upm.es           | anything." -George Verwer |them.