Every method for developing software is a prescriptive model. Applying a deconstructionist analysis to methods reveals that there are two texts, or sets of assumptions and ideals: a set that is privileged by the method and a second set that is left out, or marginalized by the method. We apply this analytical lens to software reuse, a technique in software development that seeks to expedite one's own project by using programming artifacts created by others. By analyzing the methods prescribed by Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE), we arrive at two texts: Methodical CBSE and Amethodical Remixing. Empirical data from four studies on code search on the web draws attention to four key points of tension: status of component boundaries; provenance of source code; planning and process; and evaluation criteria for candidate code. We conclude the paper with a discussion of the implications of this work for the limits of methods, structure of organizations that reuse software, and the design of search engines for source code.

Looking for source code on the Web is a common practice among software developers. Previous research has shown that developers use social cues over technical cues to evaluate source code candidates. However, current source code search engines do not take full advantage of social information. We present a prototype, an extension of Sourcerer, that shows reputation information for each developer involved in the project and the developer's activity level. From this implementation, we have learned that the effectiveness of this approach depends on the amount of reputation information available on the Web, which is currently scarce. We also learned that a ranking algorithm that relies on both relevance and reputation would be beneficial. More research needs to be done to explore ranking algorithms that combine both social and technical information and also reputation information for source code and people.