Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!usc!hacgate!ashtate!atsun!dwiggins From: dwiggins@atsun.a-t.com (Don Dwiggins) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: OOP and software reuse Message-ID: Date: 28 Jul 90 00:40:47 GMT References: <39400113@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <112789@linus.mitre.org> <5351@stpstn.UUCP> Sender: dwiggins@ashtate.UUCP Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc. Lines: 23 In-reply-to: cox@stpstn.UUCP's message of 11 Jul 90 14:32:57 GMT In article <5351@stpstn.UUCP> cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes: The solution, the "silver bullet" is so simple to state, but so difficult to apply. To wit, it is to change the *culture*, not the *technology*, for example by creating a marketplace where the *consumers* are empowered to reimburse those who do things right, rather than as today, for doing things *wrong*. An example of the wrong way is the cost+fixed fee system. An example of the right way is the U.S. Ordnance Bureau + Congress's determination to have guns with interchangeable parts, *nomatter the initial cost*, and nomatter the gunsmith's objections. The motivation for interchangeable gun parts was pretty clear to the consumers, e.g. the ability to make quick repairs in the field. What's the consumer's motivation when the programs look the same to him/her, no matter how they're built? Can we make a persuasive case that reusability leads to faster/better/cheaper (especially when this case is in dispute among the producers)? -- Don Dwiggins "If you think training is expensive, Ashton-Tate, Inc. try ignorance" dwiggins@ashtate.a-t.com -- Derek Bok, Harvard U.