Xref: utzoo comp.object:3160 comp.software-eng:5342
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!fernwood!dumbcat!marc
From: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: How to pay for reusable software
Message-ID: <291@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
Date: 14 Apr 91 03:33:42 GMT
References: <1991Apr3.231849.13410@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
	<3318:Apr705:51:2391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
	<1991Apr12.182420.18587@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Followup-To: comp.object
Organization: MH Software, Hayward, CA.
Lines: 23

In article <1991Apr12.182420.18587@m.cs.uiuc.edu> johnson@cs.uiuc.EDU (Ralph Johnson) bemoans:
 > Is the marketplace for reusable software destined to be small?

Possibly, Ralph, but not for the reasons you give.  I am constantly amazed at
the number of re-implementations of standard library functions I see in C
code.  (Especially the number of broken re-implementations of bsearch.) If
today's programmer (excuse me -- software engineer) can not learn what simple
functions exist in today's standard C library how can we expect them to learn
entire inheritance trees from multiple sources in the reusable software world
of tomorrow.

I can foresee a time when problems are being solved yet one more time simply
because the programmer doesn't know that a tried solution is available.
(Hindsight is usually 20/20.)

IMHO the real question is one of training and indexing.  Training to look for
an existing solution first.  Indexing to find the solution once you've decided
to look for it.  With current methods too many find it easier to just solve the
problem again.
-- 
// marc
// home: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us		pacbell!dumbcat!marc
// work: marc@ascend.com		uunet!aria!marc