«

On 4-Aug-2003, "Harley" <> wrote:

> | NOTHING will run 10 years from now!
>
> You might want to qualify this by language.
> (NOTHING written in ? will run 10 years from now!)
> Be careful, there are people out there with 10 year old software that is
> still running.

Correct - most of the software I work with is older than that.

But if we are talking about "reuseable", I wonder what we should be looking for.
Do we worry about plugging in the algorithm used to determine depreciation so
we don't have to analyze it again?

Coding it is simple in any language, so I am guessing we are talking about
keeping analysis and testing down. Except we will still need to analyze to
make sure conditions are still correct.

And we test as much as we can afford. In stand alone programs, we can afford
to test everything. If we code a widely used object, we had better make sure
the design is such that we can live with less testing.

Designing for reusability is designing for what we think is a characteristic of
good coding. Which is not a primary goal at all.

Julián Albo wrote:

>> (void)printf("Dama (c) 1987 - Dario Dariol\n");
>
> 1989 or 1987?

In 1987 I written the program.
My last correction to the same program was made
at September 8, 1989 17:56 (Italian local time).

- Dario

"Howard Brazee" <> wrote in message
news:bgm1dq$p8o$...
|
| On 4-Aug-2003, "Harley" <> wrote:
|
| > | NOTHING will run 10 years from now!
| >
| > You might want to qualify this by language.
| > (NOTHING written in ? will run 10 years from now!)
| > Be careful, there are people out there with 10 year old software that is
| > still running.
|
| Correct - most of the software I work with is older than that.
|
| But if we are talking about "reuseable", I wonder what we should be
looking for.

My GUESS is inheritance, and polymorphism.

| Do we worry about plugging in the algorithm used to determine
depreciation so
| we don't have to analyze it again?
|
| Coding it is simple in any language, so I am guessing we are talking about
| keeping analysis and testing down. Except we will still need to analyze
to
| make sure conditions are still correct.
|
| And we test as much as we can afford. In stand alone programs, we can
afford
| to test everything. If we code a widely used object, we had better make
sure
| the design is such that we can live with less testing.

A business rule should be able to be tested outside the system
One of the suggestions in extreme programming is that you have a test driver
BEFORE you start coding.
System integration testing is still a requirement, but the test driver
should have uncovered any problems not associated with integration issues.
You still have an Oops issue, but the Opps should be associated with the
integration, not the functionality of the object.

| Designing for reusability is designing for what we think is a
characteristic of
| good coding. Which is not a primary goal at all.

I think this is a personal preference, like a style issue.

In article < >, James Cameron wrote:
> Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
> reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This will be a
> major factor in selecting the development language. Any comments on
> past experience, research articles, comments on the matter would be
> much appreciated. I suspect something like C would be the best based
> on comments I received from the VB news group.

Mathlab? The only one I can think of being around over 15 years

Marco van de Voort wrote:

> In article < >, James Cameron wrote:
>
>>Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
>>reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This will be a
>>major factor in selecting the development language. Any comments on
>>past experience, research articles, comments on the matter would be
>>much appreciated. I suspect something like C would be the best based
>>on comments I received from the VB news group.
>
>
> Mathlab? The only one I can think of being around over 15 years

FORTRAN. I've reused FORTRAN aerodynamics models that were 30+ years old
because they captured the domain model and the domain model hasn't changed.

LISP. I've reused LISP symbolic math processing models were 20 ish
years old because they captured the domain model and the domain model
hasn't changed.

Java was designed for portable GUIs, though is a lot more general
purpose now. Does your domain model map well to the constructs in Java?
Even if you can reuse a GUI in 20 years time, Java swing will look as
old to a user then as MSDOS 3 does to a OS X user now.

C models the architecture of a defunct hardware platform, and maps well
enough to other hardware platforms to give performance efficiencies.

The closer a language is to the language of your domain model, and the
better the the representation of the domain you produce, the longer your
software will by usefully reused.


Pete

In message < >, Randy
Howard <> writes
>What about ruby, perl, various assembly groups, applescript, delphi,
>ada, awk, dylan, eiffel, forth, fortran, icon, lsip, logo, modula2,
>oberon, php, scheme, smalltalk, prolog, etc.?
>
>A truly astute troll would have included at least the above.

A with-it truly astute troll would have mentioned Rebol.

--
Alistair Maclean

In article <3f2ea56a$0$18492$>, pete kirkham wrote:
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
>> In article < >, James Cameron wrote:
>>
>>>Hi I'm developing a program and the client is worried about future
>>>reuse of the code. Say 5, 10, 15 years down the road. This will be a
>>>major factor in selecting the development language. Any comments on
>>>past experience, research articles, comments on the matter would be
>>>much appreciated. I suspect something like C would be the best based
>>>on comments I received from the VB news group.
>>
>>
>> Mathlab? The only one I can think of being around over 15 years
>
> FORTRAN. I've reused FORTRAN aerodynamics models that were 30+ years old
> because they captured the domain model and the domain model hasn't changed.

> LISP. I've reused LISP symbolic math processing models were 20 ish
> years old because they captured the domain model and the domain model
> hasn't changed.

Don't be annecdotical. Reuse all code you rewrite now, and something
that will be in major use then (so that reusing makes sense at all)

I can only think of two possible candidates. TeX, and Mathlab, both in a
different realm. I wouldn't dare to bet on another one.

Jacob wrote:
> Harley wrote:
>
>
>>> NOTHING will run 10 years from now!
>>
>> You might want to qualify this by language.
>
> Just keep it as a rule of thumb. If something made today
> runs 10 years from now it is either pure luck or a dead
> slow organization. If you expect the world to go on, you
> oraganize your software so it can go along.
>
> The fact that 15 years old Cobol (or C or PL/1 or UniFace)
> software is still out there is no *proof* that it has
> outlived time. Maybe it's is just written in a way that
> makes it impossible to move on.

If you work for a large organization (more than 100,000 employees), I'll
wager dollars to donuts your paycheck was produced by a COBOL program that's
more than twenty years old (assuming your company has been around that
long).

A prudent company wants a piece of software - like a building - to just sit
there and do its job. While 'ancient' programs do have to have maintenance
from time to time, there's not a lot of maintenance to do on a General
Ledger program (whose basic rules have remined unchanged since the 16th
century).

"jce" <> wrote in message
news:urvXa.14996$ ...
| "Harley" <> wrote in message
| news:7qsXa.84038$...
| >
| > "Malcolm" <> wrote in message
| > news:bgktdu$n07$...
| > |
| > | "James Cameron" <> wrote in message
| > COBOL ain't dead yet.
| > It has a history, and some code that surpasses the 15 year reusability
| > requirement.
|
| If this was a requirement 15 years ago then it surpassed that requirement.
|
| I don't think this requirement is effective retroactively.

No, but there are languages that should have similary stories.
C++, and VB have been around for more than 5 years, so they have a history.
C has a longer history.

Isn't VB platform dependent?

| Question isn't what code has been reusable for 15 years....but what WILL
be
| reusable IN 15 years.

Any language that has a large customer base that would holler like hell if
it were abandoned, will be around for at least 15 years.

| COBOL has had a resurgence recently - question is whether it will hold up
| for 15 more years....Probably will....but you have to hope that the
| compilers/$$$ keep up or you'll just have something that works and isn't
| bleeding edge (what's wrong with that?).
|

Have you seen any evidence that the compilers have become stagnant?

"Donald Tees" <> wrote in message
news:muqXa.898$_...
> "Peter E.C. Dashwood" <> wrote in message
> news:...
> >
> >
> >
> > The source language is irrelevant in terms of code re-use. (It is OBJECT
> > code that will be re-used...)
> >
> > You should select a source language SUITABLE FOR THE JOB YOU WANT TO
DO!!!
> >
> > Then make sure that an OO or modular approach is adopted, wrap your
> > functions as components, and you can reuse them FOR EVER not just 15
> years.
> >
> > Pete.
> >
>
> Aren't you talking about marriage or something? About the *only* code I
> know that is still running after 15 years use is in Cobol. I could say
the
> same for 30 years.
>

There is no reason to believe that what has been true in the past will be
true in the future.

On the contrary, the indications are that the future which is emerging for
IT will be VERY DIFFERENT from the IT past...

> Even in the last five years, the components I have used have evolved into
> different packaging, required updates for each OS, etc. etc.
>
Then your definition of "component" differs from mine.

If components (whether ActiveX or Java Beans) are properly wrapped (and they
have to be, to BE ActiveX or Java Beans) there will be NO NEED to make any
change to them whatsoever when running under a new OS or in a new
environment.

If you needed to change the functionality, that is a design issue which has
nothing to do with the Language in use.

I have components running on the Web, under Windows, and (in one case) under
Linux. They have never required any changes from the day they were released.

I believe that qualifies as a good definition of "re-use".

Pete.