Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: code blocks (aka closures)
Message-ID: <1990Jul9.010643.8336@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 9 Jul 90 01:06:43 GMT
References: <1112@carol.fwi.uva.nl> <15625@vlsisj.VLSI.COM> <11036@alice.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19

In article <11036@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes:
>For example, software is much easier to change than hardware, so people
>assume it can be changed.  If the processor you're using is missing your
>favorite instruction, you live with it, but if your compiler doesn't handle
>your favorite pet syntax, you start bugging the author to change it.
>
>This difference in mid set pervades all aspects of software development.

And so eventually, software system designers will have to decide:
Do we stonewall customer needs forever, or do we start building easily
modifiable systems - systems designed for incremental evolution over
extended periods of time?


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.