Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!mintaka!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!ORCRIST.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU!cwk
From: cwk@ORCRIST.GANDALF.CS.CMU.EDU (Charles Krueger)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!)
Summary: Software evangelists considered harmful, but software reuse is OK.
Keywords: Reusability, Division of Labor, Software Evangelists
Message-ID: <11747@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 91 15:34:22 GMT
References: <6108@stpstn.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 28

In article <6108@stpstn.UUCP>, cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes:
> 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"?

The problem with "artificial intelligence" was not so much the terminology
as it was the preposterous analogies, claims, and predictions that many AI
advocates were making.

Likewise, the problem with "software reuse" is not the name, which in fact
quite accurately describes the field.  The problem is with the Software
Evangelists who go around preaching the virtues of software reuse with
preposterous analogies, claims, and predictions.  This B.S.  does a great
dis-service to those researchers doing serious work on software reuse and
to the software engineering field in general.

> "Reusability! Why 'reuse' software, when any fool knows it is cheaper
> to throw used bits away and copy more from a master as needed."

Surely no one is that naive!?!?

> 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?

"Division of Labor" is a vague reference to many computer engineering
activities, but it doesn't capture the essence of "software reuse".