You have sort of chosen a bad example, although I appreciate the response - my phone runs a Linux kernel (Android) and the Linux kernel does have software and interfaces for CAN! They will not be compiled in, because the phone doesn't have the requisite hardware, but that bolsters my point even more, the Linux kernel is an example of software flexibility done right and it does a better job of providing software flexibility for cars than AUTOSAR which was designed for cars!

So code reuse for cars, yes, that's a good idea. But that's hardly revolutionary, it's barely even an idea, it's certainly not unique. It's like saying world peace is a great idea, or solving world hunger, okay, so then what? How's that idea actually implemented? Terribly (which we agree on).

To be honest, I don't think we disagree that much, just arguing over very minor points. I happened to chose your comment to reply to instead of another, it should really be viewed as a generic rant against AUTOSAR instead of against anything you've said.

I think I'm taking the view the software is theorem building, it is a bunch of ideas, thus AUTOSAR is a bad idea. Sure, you could argue the core idea is a good idea, but "reusable software", or even "reusable software for industry X" is barely an idea, it's "nice things are nice".