Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!otter.hpl.hp.com!otter!adw
From: adw@otter.hpl.hp.com (Dave Wells)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Definition of 'reuse' (was Re: a real long title)
Message-ID: <13910005@otter.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 21 Jun 91 12:47:43 GMT
References: <1991Jun14.103725.2765@dit.upm.es>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Bristol, UK.
Lines: 35

From: jgn@nvuxe.uucp (27126-Joe Niederberger(G030)m000)

>It seems to me that software reuse is a (albeit fuzzy) proposed method
>for creating software (a) faster (b) with less bugs (c) with lots of
>other nice qualities...

>Given that, does trying to pin down precise definition for "Software
>Reuse" really help? The "problem" (timeliness, bugs, etc.) remains --
>finding *new* ways to reuse software helps chip away the boundaries of
>the "problem". It seems that old triumphs (OS, DBMS, Compilers, etc.)
>become less interesting to someone trying to chip away at the current
>boundaries of the problem, rather than the boundaries that existed ten or
>twenty years ago. Likewise, novel concepts of reuse today will be boring
>ten years from now. 

The problem is that reuse through the "new" techniques (e.g. generics and
inheritance) is being widely oversold.  Often it is being oversold to those
who haven't yet mastered "the old triumphs" such as DBMSs, or even shared
subroutine libraries. Although clarifying terminology is often tedious and
can become counterproductive, it's the only line of defense against the
snake oil salesmen who give us all a bad name.

>Can an abstract definition of "Software Reuse" capture the ever shifting
>focus of attention? Its like trying to define art -- artists tend to
>care the least about any academic definitions.

This is generally true, but there are exceptions. "Art" has a cultural
definition (albeit with fuzzy and changing outlines) which we currently
lack for many of the concepts in software engineering. Artists who live on
the edge of that definition (e.g. those who produce prints and photographs)
are very, very interested in clarifying the definition of art.

>Joe Niederberger

Dave Wells