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,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ed0e0a641b1a05b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1993-03-24 14:46:36 PST
Path: sparky!uunet!fedfil!news
From: news@fedfil.UUCP (news)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada software reuse
Message-ID: <388@fedfil.UUCP>
Date: 24 Mar 93 21:53:56 GMT
References: 
 <1993Mar18.154215.27544@unix.brighton.ac.uk*<1993Mar22.133141.9851@grebyn.com>
Organization: HTE
Date: 1993-03-24T21:53:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1993Mar22.133141.9851@grebyn.com>, karl@grebyn.com (Karl A. Nyberg) writes:

*I know real reuse is hard.  Harder than I want to invest in at the moment.

Ada reuse?  Wouldn't that be kind of like reusing toilet paper?  Why
would you want to do that??  Shouldn't each individual Ada scandal be
unique???



-- 
Ted Holden
HTE