Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!bellcore-2!bellcore!dduck!duncan From: duncan@dduck.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: OOP and software reuse Message-ID: <25846@bellcore.bellcore.com> Date: 30 Jul 90 11:11:38 GMT References: <39400113@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <112789@linus.mitre.org> <5351@stpstn.UUCP> Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com Reply-To: duncan@ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) Organization: Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ Lines: 26 In article dwiggins@atsun.a-t.com (Don Dwiggins) writes: >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)? I'd say that the motivation for customers of software would be a bit different since it isn't likely they could repair software in the field. However, there is a great desire on the part of software consumers, I believe, for customiz- able (in the field) software. Hence, offering a user modules that can be "re- uysed" with one another in different combinations might be a worthwhile con- sumer-oriented approach to reuse. I think folks often conceive of "reuse" as having to do with uncompiled, un- linked, unpackaged source code. But the example of command shell languages suggests, with the proper model of input/output, reuse (recombination to achieve customization) is quite possible at an executable, rather than a source, level. Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (908-699-3910 (w) 609-737-2945 (h))