Talk:Code reuse

Merge

I think that merging "Code Reuse" into "Reusability" makes sense, as long as "Code reuse" is given as a particular case of reusability, for reusability exists in many levels (code, objects, services and entire components). (Unsigned comment by 207.245.14.100)

I agree they should be merged; there is a lot of overlap between the existing articles. I interpreted "code reuse" to include all those things, since of course they are all made up of code. In the broadest sense, these are essentially the same topic; the particulars can be explained in detail. -- Beland 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

203.129.230.229 (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Well, can design reuse, or lets say use case reuse be encompassed under this umbrella? 203.129.230.229 (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a reference or bibliography item

I've deleted the further reading section after having being through the article in question.

No material from this further reading item has been used (or directly related to the current article).

Thanks for your comments (and may be proposal to go back to the previous version)--Jbw2 (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Abstract data types

Shouldn't abstract data types be mentioned? Pgr94 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of hinted at throughout the article, and in its related links. I guess a mention of it couldn't hurt. DRogers (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)