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
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!ADA20.ISI.EDU!EBERARD
From: EBERARD@ADA20.ISI.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: DoD and Software Reusability - Part 3
Message-ID: <8703211839.AA16824@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sat, 21-Mar-87 12:02:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8703211839.AA16824
Posted: Sat Mar 21 12:02:34 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Mar-87 17:37:04 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In my previous two communications, I questioned whether the U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) was really committed to the reuse of
software. I observed that a number of DoD policies and standards
represented either direct or indirect roadblocks to the reuse of
software for DoD applications. Based on the responses I have received,
I am encouraged that several people are not only aware of the
potential problems, but are also investigating ways to directly
address the problem. (Many responses were directed directly to me
rather than to the mailing lists to which I originally posted the
messages.)

To be completely honest, those who provide software to the DoD are,
for the most part, ill-prepared to deal with reusable software
technology. In effect, if the DoD removed all roadblocks to the reuse
of software tomorrow, it would still be a long time before DoD
contractors could adequately deal with the concept.

Why do I say this? Consider the following:

   1. Few companies and organizations have anything that even slightly
      resembles a comprehensive software reusability plan. Yes, many of
      these companies and organizations have someone somewhere who is
      "researching" the idea. However, few have any intentions of
      implementing such a plan any time in the near future. Let's face
      it: software reuse is hardly a "top priority item" for many
      software firms.

   2. Examine the commercial marketplace. How many vendors do you see
      who are selling software reuse related products? I am not
      referring just to reusable software modules. What about entire
      software reusability systems, or tools specifically designed to
      aid and foster the reuse of software. (Some vendors have taken
      old products and placed the words "reuse" and "reusable" in
      their marketing literature. While some of their claims may be
      true, the reuse of software is not quite business as usual.)

   3. Look at the software engineering training available. How many
      courses whose main focus is software reuse can you name? Compare
      that to the number of "Ada(tm) courses" that are currently
      offered. For that matter, how much emphasis is placed on the
      reuse of software in the existing courses? Remember, it is not
      only the "technical staff" who must be trained in software
      reuse. Management must also be trained in software reuse.

   4. Examine the attitudes of the software personnel (programmers
      *and* managers) themselves. For some time now, I have been
      participating in software reusability forums, and I have become
      aware of many "horror stories" relating to software reuse. For
      example, it is not uncommon to hear technical personnel recite
      long lists of the "disadvantages of reusing software." Managers
      seem equally committed to maintaining the status quo. Even when
      managers purchase the tools and training necessary for
      rudimentary software reuse, staff resistance to the concept is
      still high. (Skip Carstensen at Magnavox in Ft. Wayne has some
      interesting insights into this problem.)

Yes, the DoD seems to want to encourage the reuse of software. (Just
this past week I heard more than one Army general use the term in a
positive manner.) And I am sure they are not completely aware of the full
ramifications of their commitment. (Many policies and standards will
have to be changed, personnel will have to be trained, and new
initiatives will have to be created, to name a few.) However, those of
us who provide software services to the DoD must get our own act
together. If we are clever about it, we can get a lot of work done
before the DoD removes the last roadblock to software reuse.

				-- Ed Berard
				   (301) 695-6960

(tm)Ada is a registered trademark of the U.S. Government (AJPO)
-------