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
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!MITRE.ARPA!falgiano
From: falgiano@MITRE.ARPA (Frank Falgiano)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Tools use off the repository
Message-ID: <8612171253.AA16906@mitre.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 17-Dec-86 07:53:37 EST
Article-I.D.: mitre.8612171253.AA16906
Posted: Wed Dec 17 07:53:37 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Dec-86 04:07:50 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The MITRE Corp., Washington, D.C.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Re; Message from Oscar SToud
 
  The success or failure of any reuse effort in software is 
directly proportional to the quality of specific feedback.  Saying
that there are problems in the repository  don't give the implementers
or users a chance to fix the problems.  In terms of feedback here is
what is needed:
 - identification of problem areas,
 - type of problem, ie run-time performance, core hog, task wild,
   lack of software engineering, no internal documentation, poor
   exception handling, difficult to follow execution path during
   maintenance analysis
 - fixes or work arounds that have been implemented to include
   why there are advantages
The point is there is no such thing as a free lunch.  Reusable software
requires work to keep it current and flexible.
LtCol Falgiano.