Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!sei!bwb From: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Development vs Engineering Message-ID: <9065@fy.sei.cmu.edu> Date: 15 Oct 90 19:28:07 GMT References: <27696@bellcore.bellcore.com> <2450009@hpfcmgw.HP.COM> <84754@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <5682@stpstn.UUCP> Reply-To: bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) Distribution: comp Organization: Software Engineering Institute, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 28 In article cimshop!davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) writes: >Before there was object-oriented programming, there was function-oriented >programming. Everyone invented useful, *reuseable* functions to do all sorts >of basic things (how many sort routines have you seen?). Yet, it went very >little further than the basics (I never saw a reusable accounting function). >Why? And why should one expect that reusable, object-oriented programming >will go any further? I just never want to write another sort, search, link list, stack, queue, b-tree, etc, algorithm again. These things have been around a long time and are fundamental to the discipline. I would be happy if I could work at this simple level. Aren't these the basic building blocks of our field? True, I can (and do) pull these algorithms out of a book (the engineering handbook approach we seem to be striving for) but this is not as satisfying nor as productive as just instantiating: sort(sort_method, data_structure, key(s)...) Performance (space/time complexity) can be tuned by the sort_method and other parameters and if all else fails THEN code your own. The heck with an accounting function, I would be happy with the basics. * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + >--|> * Carnegie Mellon University + Voice - 412 268 8469 + + * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 + + US Air Force