Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!hsi!stpstn!cox From: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Development vs Engineering Message-ID: <5727@stpstn.UUCP> Date: 26 Oct 90 21:16:44 GMT References: <32087@athertn.Atherton.COM> <32084@athertn.Atherton.COM> <27696@bellcore.bellcore.com> <2450009@hpfcmgw.HP.COM> <84754@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <5682@stpstn.UUCP> <320 Reply-To: cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) Distribution: comp Organization: Stepstone Lines: 24 In article <32174@athertn.Atherton.COM> mcgregor@hemlock.Atherton.COM (Scott McGregor) writes: | Brad Cox has noted the similarity between code module/object reuse and | interchangable components in firearms. One of the interesting thing to | note about that is that most of the components are visible to the user | who, if a knowledgable gunsmith, can visually determine their quality. | The packaging for most subroutine libraries and object libraries is | not their viewable code form, but a compiled form, requiring considerable | more effort for an expert to judge quality and suitability from. On the | other hand, for non-experts this is irrelevant. They like the fact that | they DON'T HAVE TO BE EXPERT, but can make decisions on marketing glossies | alone and the have greater faith in the expertise of the producer than | they have in their own abilities. I believe that Brad has noted | gunsmith opposition to interchangable parts when introduced, but that it | was the soldiers in the field and other consumers who preferred them. Just a note to point out that the article Scott is referring to will appear in the next (November) issue of IEEE Software, "Planning the Software Industrial Revolution". A shorter (butchered...thanx, Byte...never will you publish for me again) version appeared in this month's Byte magazine, titled "There *is* a silver bullet". -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482