It's definitely inspired by Literate Programming. My code instructions in OP refer to a directory called wart/literate. > But without the documentation around

It's definitely inspired by Literate Programming. My code instructions in OP refer to a directory called wart/literate. > But without the documentation around it, I'm not sure I feel the same way about it. It feels harder to reason about what where why. I don't understand this. Are you saying my approach doesn't permit documentation? I don't see why. Check out the start of the first layer: http://akkartik.github.io/mu/html/000organization.cc.html http://akkartik.github.io/mu/html/000organization.cc.html Do you mean that the documentation doesn't look as nice as Literate systems? I think that's a good thing: http://akkartik.name/post/literate-programming http://akkartik.name/post/literate-programming. Giving important concepts in your program a good central place is the essential need of documentation. Layers give features a single consolidated place (a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) ) where you can include documentation and be confident that someone interested in the feature will find it. Next to this attribute, I think typography is almost meaningless. I think it's far more important that documentation be accessible from within my programming environment, than that it be typeset well. > I'm assuming bugs should be fixed without using this layering. Yup! From the final paragraph of OP: "Codebases have three kinds of changes: bugfixes, new features and reorganizations. In my new organization bugfixes modify a single layer.."