>Steve, et.al,
>it has been my observation (recently confirmed in
>trade magazine) that the reusability of OOP has
>been
>greatly exagerated (would they do that?). it
>seems
>that a reusability factor of 10-15% is doing real
>good! REAL GOOD, ive been doing better than that
>for
>over 15 years by following procedural design
>techniques
>tauted in 1973 by such luminaries as DeMarco,
>Yourdon,
>Myers, etc. I can even remember a paper about
>'the
>black box' technique (cica 1962) about the
>tireless
>tractor company's designs. Gee, some of these
>same
>names are now tauting OOP????? Are we missing
>something?
>
>Granted, top level code for A/R isnt going to be
>usable
>in A/P but i sure do seem to have a lot of lower
>level
>common code, in fact,


Lucien

Your showing your Dinasaur -- I mean age! Someone once told me that every new generation of PhDs reinvents the wheel with a new nomenclature in order to justify there presence. I have come to believe it. The design philosophy has really not changed but the technology has. So in order to look good new words are created for philosophy to keep pace with the new technology.

Tom