I read the article, and I couldn't find any explanation of how to regain the lost encapsulation. I see him mentioning anonymous inner functions and that "reusi

I read the article, and I couldn't find any explanation of how to regain the lost encapsulation. I see him mentioning anonymous inner functions and that "reusing modules" is hard. Did you mean to refer to this? Anonymous inner functions are more difficult to share across multiple components that share their intricate knowledge of the implementation details and would be stored in a module. I do not think they are a viable replacement for an explicit boundary around multiple components. About reuse of modules being hard -- I think this again stems from poorly designed module APIs and semantics. Well-designed modules (e.g: STL's modules, Haskell's data structure modules) are very easy to re-use. I completely agree with him on the difficulty/arbitrarity of module naming, though. I don't think modules should be given a made-up name, but rather found by more informative "meta-data" and addressed by auto-generated unique names.