Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!samsung!munnari.oz.au!brolga!uqcspe!batserver.cs.uq.oz.au!phil
From: phil@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Phil Stocks)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!)
Keywords: Reusability, Division of Labor
Message-ID: <7095@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 31 Jan 91 00:03:15 GMT
References: <6108@stpstn.UUCP>
Sender: news@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: phil@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au
Lines: 31

In <6108@stpstn.UUCP> cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes:

>What do you think about substituting 'division of labor' for reusability
>across the board, on the grounds that it says precisely what is meant
>and nothing more?

No, that won't do. People won't settle on whether to spell labour as
"labour" or "labor". In any Commonwealth country "division of labor" is a
political rift, not a software engineering term :-).

What is required is a word that means "componentisation" (why isn't that a
word in the English language? Sigh.). As I understand it, your stress is on
the construction of software components, that are produced wholesale in the
same way as 6 inch screws. An idea with which I agree. I was impressed with
your paper in November 1990 IEEE Software. I'll take this opportunity to
recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it.

Perhaps a word like (dare I say it) "object-orientation" is needed, if we
could include in the definition of object not only the desired
functionality, but also documentation, specifications, test suites, and
anything else deemed desirable.

Perhaps it's time for another meaningless acronym?

-----------
Phil Stocks
Department of Computer Science
The University of Queensland
Queensland 4072
AUSTRALIA
email: phil@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au