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!mnetor!seismo!gatech!hao!husc6!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!NADC.ARPA!schimsky From: schimsky@NADC.ARPA (D. Schimsky) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Software Reuse Message-ID: <8706171143.AA04229@NADC.ARPA> Date: Wed, 17-Jun-87 07:43:22 EDT Article-I.D.: NADC.8706171143.AA04229 Posted: Wed Jun 17 07:43:22 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jun-87 10:03:44 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet List-Id: As a "Government" manager of major software developments, let me offer that most of comments I've seen here relative to "re-use" appear academic. 1. No, I would NOT pay more for a product that takes advantage of re-use, since virtually my entire concern is to LOWER the price of software development. There is no way, short of pushing my nose in it, that I will believe a paper analysis showing me how much I will save tomorrow if only I give you more today. 2. Short of absolute mandate (translate to "I order you to...") the detailed methods employed in the development of software are made on a very local level by the people first in line for the responsibilty. These are the Project Engineers, or Program Officers, or some equivalent title. I believe I know what their opinion is concerning re-use, but it would be interesting to hear them speak. 3. By what magic do you expect an organization as large and diverse and, sometimes, divergent, to adopt a methodology that begs for standardization, cooperation, flexibility and a non-parochial attitude, when you would do well to find one, small, isolated group, anywhere, doing the same?