Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!apc
From: apc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Alan P. Curtis)
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Abstraction vs. optimization?
Message-ID: <7537@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 16 Jun 89 17:05:42 GMT
References: <7037@cbmvax.UUCP> <5667@hubcap.clemson.edu> <51097@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <5479@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: apc@cbnews.ATT.COM (Alan P. Curtis)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

In <5479@rpi.edu> adamsf@cs.rpi.edu (Frank Adams) writes:
}In <51097@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bruce Weide <weide@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
}>If there is to be a "reusable components" cottage industry, probably
}>many components will only be available as specifications plus runnable
}>code in object form.

}I suspect that software components in object form will never be successful.
}There is too much need to diddle with things, too little which can be used as is.

}Frank Adams   adamsf@cs.rpi.edu

I think the point of truely reusable components is that you cannot, and
should not diddle!

Now there may be another industry for "interesting code fragments"
with with you diddle, but if you are diddling with a thing
that was claimed to be a "reusable component", then it wasn't
reusable, or wasn't the right component, now was it?

Do you diddle with quad nand gates?
Do you diddle with the internals of a 68k?

I din't think so.
apc

PS Hi Bruce...
-- 
Alan P. Curtis | AT&T Bell Labs | apc@cblpe.ATT.COM