Reuse Repositories (Was: Object Oriented Turing Demo on FTP)

Reuse Repositories (Was: Object Oriented Turing Demo on FTP)

[Stephen P. N orman]

In article 5069@seas.gwu.edu, mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
> In article <SRCTRAN.93Apr26205349@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Grego
ry Aharonian) writes:
> >   I hope the troughers at ASSET read this message and learned a good way
> >of publicizing reusable software over the Internet.  Shouldn't the ongoing
> >silence from ASSET on comp.lang.ada about what they do and what they have
> >grounds for firing or demoting someone?  I mean, when other languages have
> >a better promotion record on comp.lang.ada than people receiving tax
> >dollars to promote Ada reuse, there are serious problems.
> >
> I couldn't agree more. When will ASSET come out of its corner and start
> acting like it wants to promote what it does?

Never thought I would see this. Michael and Greg agreeing for once -:)

> 
> There's no need for ASSET folks to get in the middle of flame wars,
> but an occasional announcement of some of the good stuff available
> there might be helpful both to net readers and to ASSET.
> 
> Well.....? RU there?

They must be there, because one of the postings I made drew a call from
the one of the STARS Software Reuse Leads. Must say that this person was
sincerely interested in our experiences with reuse.

> 
> Mike Feldman
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michael B. Feldman
> co-chair, SIGAda Education Committee
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will go out on a limb and add a few of my personal observations (opinions
)
to this thread concerning the government reuse initiatives:

* ASSET, DSRO, C2Store, STARS, CARDS, DISA, DSSA, PRISM, CASS, ARC, SIMTEL, etc
. seem to be reorganized all too often. We have a hard time staying up to date 
with who is where, 
who used to be what, and so forth. Was very convenient that at the 'Who's doing
 What in Reuse' pitch at the STARS 92 conference there were no handouts of the 
slides available.
Change is a fact of life, but let's adequately document what is going on.

* These DOD guys could use a lesson or two from the COSMIC guys, who in my
experience are light years ahead in the marketing realm. Yes, their approach is
 low
tech, but it works, and it is easy to use and easy to obtain. Every month I get
 an
e-mail from them saying what's new in the COSMIC realm. I can index this stuff 
into
WAIS and in an instant pretty much know if there is any software dealing with a
 particular topic I have in mind.

* On-line access mechanisms are not consistent are certainly not convenient. AS
SET et al
should be (and maybe are) looking at technologies like AFS (Transarc's Andrew F
ile System, DCE), WAIS, gopher, archie, and JANUS. CD-ROMS, gosh what a great i
dea. Why
should I telnet to somewhere, get 10 keystrokes a minute while navigating some 
complex search mechanism and all I find is a 5 year old X11R3 binding. Let's fa
ce it - there
aren't any domain specific reusable components that I know of out there - why e
xpend all the energy on sophisticated browsing mechanisms using expert systems 
and what not when most engineers can determine in a few minutes whether what is
 out there TODAY will work for them. A major problem is they can't find anythin
g if they wanted to, and until MIL-STD-SDD comes along they have no incentive t
o look for anything anyways (much less develop for reuse). Most DOD programs th
at I know of are behind the closed do




ors (i.e. classified, no network access), so something like a CD-ROM sure would
 be convenient. You could put the browsing mechanism on the disk along with the
 libraries contents. 

Well, I'll get off the soapbox. Hope I have not -:('d too much.

Steve Norman
Software Reuse Group
Martin Marietta Astronautics
PO Box 179
Denver CO 80201

snorman@den.mmc.com

Re: Reuse Repositories (Was: Object Oriented Turing Demo on FTP)

[Gregory Aharonian]

> ASSET, DSRO, C2Store, STARS, CARDS, DISA, DSSA, PRISM, CASS, ARC, SIMTEL,
> etc. seem to be reorganized all too often. We have a hard time staying up to
> date with who is where, who used to be what, and so forth. Was very
> convenient that at the 'Who's doing What in Reuse' pitch at the STARS 92 
> conference there were no handouts of the slides available.

   Not only do they reorganize too often (in order to distance themselves
from initial promises and goals that were impossible), but you should of
questioned why they are in existence at all.  Consider software reuse
centers - if there is any economic value in the process that it should be
possible for the private sector to assume the responsibility.
   I am trying to run a such a software reuse center as a private
enterprise, and all of my competitors are government funded government efforts.
ASSET, DSRO, VCOE, ADANET, COSMIC, NTTC, etc all with taxpayers dollars
can advertise, have 800 numbers and goto trade shows and conferences (well
at least the non-DoD efforts).  I can not afford most of these marketing
luxuries, and can't offer my services for free, making it difficult to find
paying customers.  I can't find investors since they don't want to invest
in a business where the "competition" has such an outrageous advantage.
And the shame of it all is that my database of information on reusable
software is probably three times larger than the collective totals of all
of the government sponsored efforts.  Yet it languishes because of these
socialist interventions in the marketplace by the comrades in the DoD, DoC
and NASA.

   The DoD might get estatic about the "control" it has over software reuse
in the defense world by controlling these centers, but it is at the expense
of more efficient software reuse than the private sector could offer.

   The choice is simple: does the DoD want control or success with software
reuse in light of the greater goal of systems development?  Putting people
with no experience in charge of software reuse centers, but are good
soldiers (literally and figuratively) indicates that the DoD prefers control
over success.

Greg Aharonian

-- 
**************************************************************************
Greg Aharonian
Source Translation & Optimiztion
P.O. Box 404, Belmont, MA 02178

Re: Reuse Repositories (Was: Object Oriented Turing Demo on FTP)

[cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csc.ti.com!til]

In article <SRCTRAN.93Apr29094316@world.std.com> srctran@world.std.com (Gregory
 Aharonian) writes:
> if there is any economic value in the process that it should be
>possible for the private sector to assume the responsibility.
>   I am trying to run a such a software reuse center as a private
>enterprise, and all of my competitors are government funded government efforts
.
>ASSET, DSRO, VCOE, ADANET, COSMIC, NTTC, etc all with taxpayers dollars
>can advertise, have 800 numbers and goto trade shows and conferences (well
>at least the non-DoD efforts).  I can not afford most of these marketing
>luxuries, and can't offer my services for free, making it difficult to find
>paying customers.  I can't find investors since they don't want to invest
>in a business where the "competition" has such an outrageous advantage.

Greg, the most basic premise of capitalism is that one does not attempt
to go head-to-head with a 700-lb gorilla if one wishes to succeed.  If you
cannot compete in your chosen market, FOR WHATEVER REASON, the thing to do
is fold your tent and do something else.

>And the shame of it all is that my database of information on reusable
>software is probably three times larger than the collective totals of all
>of the government sponsored efforts.  Yet it languishes because of these
>socialist interventions in the marketplace by the comrades in the DoD, DoC
>and NASA.

No, it languishes because YOU don't advertise EITHER.  Until I started
reading comp.lang.ada, I had no idea whatsoever that you even existed.
If I wasn't reading comp.lang.ada, I probably STILL would not know that
you existed.  Advertising is a cost of doing business, and your accountant
will tell you what that means.  As for 800 numbers: if you want an 800
number, there are voice mail firms that will give you an 800 number and a
mailbox.  This will give you at least a minimal "leave a message and I will
get back to you, or tell me what you need and give me a mailing address"
capability.

>   The DoD might get estatic about the "control" it has over software reuse
>in the defense world by controlling these centers, but it is at the expense
>of more efficient software reuse than the private sector could offer.

The market decides, Greg.  If you can provide BETTER service, which is defined
as being "what the market wants to buy, at the price they want it", and the
market KNOWS about your service, then you will be successful.  If you can't
do that, then you will fail.

>   The choice is simple: does the DoD want control or success with software
>reuse in light of the greater goal of systems development?  Putting people
>with no experience in charge of software reuse centers, but are good
>soldiers (literally and figuratively) indicates that the DoD prefers control
>over success.

Greg, it almost sounds like you want the DoD to put you COMPLETELY out of
business, rather than waiting for you to do it to yourself.  Consider: they
could be reading this, thinking what they can do to improve customer service,
and saying to themselves, "Greg has a point.  We AREN'T doing a good job of
getting the word out.  He even told us how we could do better.  Thanks, Greg!"
Are you SURE you want to trade an incompetent government-sponsored competitor
for a highly competent, highly aggressive one?

Greg, if the market doesn't know you exist, it has no reason to send you money.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A BUSINESS THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO ADVERTISE.  THERE
ARE *ONLY* BUSINESSES THAT CAN'T AFFORD *NOT* TO ADVERTISE.  This is so basic
that it should be engraved into every businessman's skull.