Skip to main content

Software Engineering: Reuse Has Finally Arrived

Have you noticed that code reuse works these days? For a long time, software engineers struggled with the difficulty of reusing existing software, but it's now common place

Let me give you some examples. I use Linux, Nginx, MySQL, and Python, not to mention a Web browser. These days, very few people need to write a custom kernel, Web server, database, or programming language to solve their particular problem. Sure it happens, but it's far more common to reuse something existing.

I even make use of an existing Web framework, Pylons, and an existing templating engine, Mako. Those things are often written from scratch, but I didn't need to. They were fine.

Even within my own code, I find plenty of places for reuse. Each of my clients has a pretty different setup. Their input formats and output formats are often pretty different, but by using a UNIXy "small tools that can be pieced together" approach, I usually write only a small amount of code when I get a new customer.

What has changed? Why is it suddenly so easy to reuse code? Has object-oriented programming finally paid off? Maybe. However, I think the more likely culprit is open source. Small companies are now viable because they have access to a huge corpus of freely available source code. They don't have to pay for it. They can look at the source if the documentation is inadequate. They can contribute bug fixes if they encounter bugs. They can even hack it in deep ways to accomplish special tasks. This is particularly common in the BSD world.

Last of all, testing and a strong dedication to docstrings help me with reusing my own code. Per agile thinking, I don't try to get it right the first time. If I need to add a feature to make use of code in an unexpected way, I can. The docstrings help me understand what's already there, and the tests help make sure I don't break it.

Comments

Bob Van Zant said…
At a macro level you're obviously correct. However, the closer we get to any given piece of software we find that code reuse is far from a reality. Within the commercial product that I work on there is plenty of copy and paste action. Within open source applications we find the same thing in the common case.

In a less explicit way we see engineers reinventing the wheel with code that looks and smells like code in a different module. So now you can talk about a different set of problems like communication amongst engineers and how do you structure a codebase so that it can be properly divided amongst teams so that they're less likely to duplicate effort.

So I absolutely agree with what you're seeing and writing, however, I think the problem of today is at a more micro level and very widespread.
jjinux said…
Bob, since I've worked on that same piece of commercial software, I absolutely agree with you. We definitely haven't come to some nirvana of component reuse, as was hoped. You're right, it's hardest at the micro level. However, we have come to a point where large open source projects are reused and languages themselves come with large, useful libraries.

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within Tunes.org , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and jabber.org. Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p