NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #30/NN_1992_30.iso/spool/comp/software/4947

Text File | 1992-12-14 | 3.1 KB | 62 lines

Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!stanford.edu!rock!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!julian
From: [e-mail] (Phil Julian)
Subject: Re: Request for reuse tool info
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:33:24 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: vanuliet.unx.sas.com
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 48


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Marc S. Gibian) writes:
>
> What I find missing in most CASE tools, and all the time with re-use tools
> and methodologies, is that they are passive.  They require the engineer to
> explicitly search a database, know the ground rules for building designs,
> etc.  I believe that for re-use to realize its very real potential, as
> well as most CASE tools, is for them to become integrated active assistants.
> An example:
>
> I start by using a design tool to start designing some software.  I would
> like the design tool to not just allow me to build my design, but also to
> constantly try to match portions of MY design against the pool of designs
> (and existing code and tests for those designs).  When it finds a "close"
>match, the design tool points out the match as a candidate for reuse, allowing
> me to evaluate whether it REALLY is a design that does what I need, and then
> incorporates the re-used design into the design I am creating.

I really think that you have found an essential point here, but I
would like to extend the idea of an ACTIVE role to the programmer
himself.  We all need to search for a "design match" for each project
that we do, but this seldom happens even when people work for the same
company or for the same department.

Also, I can anticipate the reaction when you explain your past projects:
   "Oh, I borrowed most of the code and adapted it to my own needs."
   "But, what did you really write yourself?"
   "Well, you don't understand.  I reused the code, which is good."
   "But, can you show me something that you have done yourself?"
   "Well, this part here, and that piece there."
   "Next applicant!"

From this scenario, reuse is bad for resumes.  What do other
programmers or employers value more -- reusing old code or writing
original code?  The problem may be our own attitudes and the attitudes
of the marketplace.  Reuse is not valued as an intrinsic skill.  I
know this is trite, but have you ever seen "reuse" as a desired skill
on a job description?

> --
> Marc S. Gibian            email: [e-mail]
> Principal Software Engineer    phone: [phone]
> Digital Equipment Corporation    fax:   [phone]  or [phone]
--
 Phil Julian           | "I call it warpabilly, muddle of the rude, queasy
 SAS Institute, Inc.   |  listening!"
 Open Systems R & D    | Rev. Billy C. Wirtz, as quoted in the Record
 [e-mail]    | Exchange Music Monitor