Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu!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: <88278@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 91 17:05:59 GMT
References: <6108@stpstn.UUCP> <4842@cui.unige.ch> <318@smds.UUCP> <88106@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <6257@stpstn.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: 21

In response to:

>>The question is whether large composite software objects are in any essential
>>way distinguishable from programs.

Brad Cox writes:

>What varies along the continuum from large to small is late vs early binding.

>                           ...  I find that the alternate terminology,
>tight vs loose coupling, is advisable when hoping for rational consideration
>.... 

Late vs early binding (or tight vs loose coupling) is certainly an issue in
programming, but it seems independent of component size. Even in the
stereo component analogy that raised this question, engineers often opt
for the early-binding/tight-coupling solution of putting a popular collection
of `components' into a single product (thereby realizing one of the
obvious advantages of early binding -- namely cost saving).

/Bill