Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!ucbvax!genesis.Berkeley.EDU!luism
From: luism@genesis.Berkeley.EDU (Luis Miguel)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!)
Keywords: Reusability, Division of Labor
Message-ID: <40748@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 31 Jan 91 17:48:07 GMT
References: <6108@stpstn.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: luis@postgres.berkeley.edu
Organization: UC Berkeley
Lines: 47

In article <6108@stpstn.UUCP>, cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes:
|> What do you think of this notion?
|> 
|> Could it be that we (reusability proponents) are shooting ourself in
|> the foot with the word, "reusability", just as the AI community did
|> themselves in with a term of their own choosing, "artificial
|> intelligence"?
|> 
|> Such words are fine for agreeing with one's friends, but are terrible 
|> for persuading one's enemies.
|> 
|> "Reusability! Why 'reuse' software, when any fool knows it is cheaper
|> to throw used bits away and copy more from a master as needed."
|> 
|> See what I mean? The word gives those who don't want to listen an
|> excuse to misunderstand the message, just as with AI.
|> 
|> 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?
|> 

My impression is that the terminology is not the problem, rather I
see two:

1) Much has been made of the reticence of established software engineers
to embrace the reusability bandwagon. My opinion is that this is not
the major obstacle to the widespread adoption of software reusability.
The obstacle is that there are still several hard problems that prevent
reusability from being widely available and applicable.
I believe that until we (researchers and industry) solve these problems
and SHOW the software engineering community what the advantages of
this approach are, people will cling to their old ways.

2) On another note, I also think that we, "reusability proponents", might
have commited a similar mistake to the AI community: that of EXAGGERATED
EXPECTATIONS. Do you think we might have promised a panacea that we have
been unable to deliver? Remember when we heard, in the late '60s, that
we would be soon having conversatoins with our computers?

/Luis

-- 
Luis Miguel. Computer Science Division, UC Berkeley.
arpanet: luis@postgres.Berkeley.EDU         
uucp: {ihnp4,decvax}!ucbvax!postgres!luis                    
at&t: (415) 642-8234