Like my own his English is good but not that good. His seems the right way to explain (there probably is a formal description for the style of writing (and a wo

Like my own his English is good but not that good. His seems the right way to explain (there probably is a formal description for the style of writing (and a word for it in German)) but when reception is not guaranteed (I keep feeling like I almost got his point.) I would lower myself to explaining by code example. Something like a "hello world" of usable vs re-usable. Someone more skilled in the art should probably address note 6 ( https://www.ufried.com/blog/reusability_fallacy_3/#fn:6 https://www.ufried.com/blog/reusability_fallacy_3/#fn:6 ) I did recall a thought I had some years ago that I will describe crudely because I'm lazy: Parts of applications, by popularity, should be re-implemented in API's. Parts of API's, by popularity, should be implemented in modules. Parts of modules, by popularity, should be implemented in frameworks. Parts of frameworks, by popularity, should be implemented in (higher) languages (then lower) Parts of languages, by popularity, should be baked into hardware. (Unpopular parts should migrate the other way around but that is not important right now)