Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!seal.cis.ohio-state.edu!ogden
From: ogden@seal.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F Ogden)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!)
Keywords: Reusability, Division of Labor
Message-ID: <88106@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 91 16:22:25 GMT
References: <6108@stpstn.UUCP> <4842@cui.unige.ch> <318@smds.UUCP>
Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: William F Ogden <ogden@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science
Lines: 16

In article <318@smds.UUCP> sw@smds.UUCP (Stephen E. Witham) writes:
    ....
>         To paraphrase, the problem with object-oriented programming is the
>programming.  It's only halfway to a new paradigm.  Even Brad Cox
>constructs his software by programming.  But someday soon we'll have
>"component software" (as distinct from software components) by analogy to
>component stereo--software the user plugs together.  And maybe "software
>composition" or "software compositing."

The question is whether large composite software objects are in any essential
way distinguishable from programs. Does programming consist of anything
but composing simpler objects to create more complex ones? The only thing
that seems to change from paradigm to paradigm is the collection of
composition mechanisms.

/Bill