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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!jbg From: jbg@sei.cmu.edu (John Goodenough) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reserve Demobilization System Built Around Reused Ada Code Message-ID: <26528@as0c.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 5 Jun 91 13:57:46 GMT References: <0D010010.gk4ndi@brain.UUCP> Sender: netnews@sei.cmu.edu In-reply-to: chuck@brain.UUCP's message of 30 May 91 18:30:53 GMT List-Id: In article Re: Reserve Demobilization System Built Around Reused Ada Code of 30 May 91 18:30:53 GMT chuck@brain.UUCP writes: > 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. It is my impression that the figures quoted for high levels of software reuse and productivity in Japan are often based on just this kind of "rapid tailoring" or "rapid reengineering". I remember a paper some years ago concerned with generating process control software by a Japanese company in which they reported high levels of software reuse because they were tailoring their standard software to each customer's needs. 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... John B. Goodenough Goodenough@sei.cmu.edu Software Engineering Institute 412-268-6391