The pdf has proper fonts (d/l link top right https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/download/27/28/ https://journals.blythinstitute.org/o

The pdf has proper fonts (d/l link top right https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/download/27/28/ https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/articl...) I've only skimmed it, would appreciate a tl;dr. The non-evolvability of interfaces reminds me of Parnas' famous On the Criteria To Be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules (https://www.win.tue.nl/~wstomv/edu/2ip30/references/criteria_for_modularization.pdf https://www.win.tue.nl/~wstomv/edu/2ip30/references/criteria...), where you choose variant modules demarcated by invariant interfaces, such that the evolution you anticpate will occur within the modules. This approach is great, until it turns out your choice of interfaces was wrong because you are terrible at predicting the future... but because of the dependencies on them, change is difficult. Dependencies ossify. All you can do is rewrite from scratch.