Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!dynsim1!litwin!jto
From: jto@litwin.com (John O'Beck)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Modifiability
Keywords: Maintainability, Modifiability
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.133553.14191@litwin.com>
Date: 10 Jun 91 13:35:53 GMT
References: <2192@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> <1991Jun5.201807.13286@netcom.COM> <2195@Terra.cc.brunel.ac.uk> <1991Jun6.230049.19029@netcom.COM> <1991Jun7.185211.20475@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <1991Jun7.201323.11984@netcom.COM>
Distribution: comp.software-eng
Organization: Litwin Process Automation
Lines: 20

jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

  >>One of the things that I tend to emphasize is that it is impossible to
  >>invent a general-purpose widget unless you know how to build 
  >>special-purpose...

  >...Reuse is acquired through experience and trial-and-error. People don't 
  >like this idea, because it means they have to PLAN to fail for a while, 
  >but the upside is that most companies already have sufficient domain 
  >expertise ...

Any learning process is iterative.  I think the real question is: How does
an *organization* optimize the process of iteration?  How are the lessons
of trial and error communicated to newer members of the staff?  All to often
the same mistakes are repeated because junior staff members simply don't
know any better.

Formal peer review of deliverabales from each phase go along way toward
addressing this.  In most engineering disciplines reqirements, designs etc
are reviewed to the hilt.  Somehow, this seems to rarely happen with