Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!igor!yoda!jls From: jls@yoda.Rational.COM (Jim Showalter) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Reusability considered harmful??(!!) Message-ID: Date: 18 Feb 91 00:43:14 GMT References: <88431@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <6108@stpstn.UUCP> <87829@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <6248@stpstn.UUCP> <1991Feb11.103100.112@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> <34464@athertn.Atherton.COM> Sender: news@Rational.COM Lines: 20 Your points about testing requirements are interesting, and there has been a lot of discussion of this in the Ada community because Ada provides generics, which can be reused indefinitely PROVIDED they are trusted. The odd thing is, people worry about testing inherited code, but they are looking at it wrong, I think. If you have gotten some software that asserts it can be inherited from, you should treat that software like an IC. You don't second-guess Intel, right? If the software DOES break, it should be something you can take to the courts, just as a chip that failed to perform to spec would be grounds for restitution. Until people get comfortable with the idea of off-the-shelf software being just as much of a black box as ANY OTHER COMMODITY, we will continue to battle this weird behavior. Do you second guess anything else you buy? No? Then why second-guess software modules? -- ***** DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are my own. Duh. Like you'd ever be able to find a company (or, for that matter, very many people) with opinions like mine. -- "When I want your opinion, I'll beat it out of you."