3 ms·
I've been having a long-running private discussion with the author about this. My anti-modularity stance: http://akkartik.name/post/modularity http://akkartik.n
by akkartik 10y ago
I've been having a long-running private discussion with the author about this. My anti-modularity stance: http://akkartik.name/post/modularity http://akkartik.name/post/modularity. However this is a sane use of modularity. My point is mostly that just adding more module boundaries without thought isn't always a net win. So I guess I'd change the statement you quoted to "the right separation of concerns." And the right separation takes trial and error to discover.
- marcosdumay 10y agoWell, of course, your separation of concerns is only as useful as the boundary is well thought. Modularity is not a magic wand (Brooks' "silver bullets" aren't an strong enough concept for what you are debunking) that makes all the problems of software developing go away.
- akkartik 10y agoNot sure if you found me super insightful :) or yawn obvious, but I was responding to the quote that modularity is the solution to complexity. We're surrounded by software that made that mistake and ended up adding complexity instead of reducing it.
- marcosdumay 10y agoTo tell the truth, I can't decide :) You are fighting a straw men. Yes, it's a straw men that some people argue that it's a good fighter, but I'd rather just ignore those people. By the other side, you are attacking it by an angle that I've never thought about.