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=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Dan Evens Subject: Re: Software Engineering is not a hoax... Date: 1997/05/27 Message-ID: <338B30F5.745B@hydro.on.ca>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 244303261 References: <5mc1a2$icf$1@dbs1.sma.ch> <338B2118.41C67EA6@metaware.com> Organization: Ontario Hydro Reply-To: dan.evens@hydro.on.ca Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Scott Stanchfield wrote: > I've never written more than one program to do exactly the same task > (unless I'm rewriting it to improve it.) Each time I sit down to code > something the goal is different. Hrm. Have you never solved the same *kind* of problem twice? Automobiles don't all go *exactly* the same place twice. Never set up a searchable index twice? Never set up a database twice? Never made a linked list twice? And so on. > Sure, we can use common algorithms and objects such as containers and > math packages. But the overall product is not something that has been > done before, and therefore, there is no proven, repeatable method to > "engineer" that work. There are certainly subtasks which appear repeatedly in recognizably identical fashion. This is why books like _Design Patterns_ by Gamma et al. are useful and instructive books to read. The "one off" mind set is clearly counter productive most of the time. -- Standard disclaimers apply. I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail. I don't buy from their ISPs. Dan Evens