This article confuses the reader with a weird implicit definition of modularity. The miscommunication is rooted here: > Separate compilation allows you to comp

This article confuses the reader with a weird implicit definition of modularity. The miscommunication is rooted here: > Separate compilation allows you to compile parts of a program separately from other parts. I would say it was a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for modularity. The author goes on to assert that a requirement for modularity is that modules that depend on each other should be able to be compiled independently, without even a specification to glue them together. This just doesn't make sense. This might be a debatable point, but it has nothing to do with modularity.