quote:Original post by SabreMan
I have no more to say on the topic of "reuse". As DrPizza observed, I am talking to a brick wall. I''m pretty amazed at how many times people have put words in my mouth, plain misunderstood, or spectacularly missed the point. What really stinks is the propensity of certain individuals to suggest that I''ve invented the idea that I''ve discussed this with ACCU members, or the people who have seen fit to undermine the worth of the ACCU to instil greater value into their own viewpoint. I know which I think is the better source of experience and insight between Gamedev and ACCU.
Well you may have discussed the issue of coding for reusability with ACCU members, but you certainly have not discussed the definition of reuse with any ACCU members, as your friend Kevlin Henney does not even agree with you on the definition of reuse. Just go and read some of his papers that talk about reuse and you will see. His major argument is that object-oriented coding does not necessarily lead to reusability. I think you are reading way too much into the arguments of these people and coming to some outlandish conclusions. And out of all of the ACCU members with papers on the subject of reusability he is the ONLY one that I can find which does not promote designing for reusability. One single developer from the UK whos papers are always far down the list. Who else from the ACCU agrees with you that you have been speaking to?
But I don''t know of any members of the ACCU which have headed any of the most technically advanced corporations in the world. I will take the word of Will Tracz over the word of Kevlin Henney any day. WilL Tracz has alot more clout in my book because he has actually DONE something other than write papers. If they can freakin design for reusability in combat systems where peoples lives are at stake, and the United States'' position of power in the military arena are at stake, then I think maybe writing for reusability in my financial applications would be just fine. I have seen plenty of proof that it works, and I have seen nothing along the lines of proof that it doesn''t.
quote:
For anyone who is genuinely interested (which doesn''t seem to be anyone who''s contributed), the details can be found. All it takes is a willingness to do some research. I know the view is contrary to established opinion, and there is far more pro-reuse information to be found. That is because what I have expressed is a fairly new idea. Those with a sense of history may be able to think back to what reuse actually means without their judgement being so clouded by propaganda, but I suspect most people here have grown up with OO and aren''t aware of how various terms came into current usage.
I have been developing software far longer than OO has been around my friend. You are not talking to one of the high-school kids who frequent this site. I was part of the team that integrated OO methodologies into TRWs engineering department. I know what most of the terms are, and I know what they mean. And NOBODY I have ever talked to or read has ever used your definition of reuse except for you.
Peace,
Geek
