4 ms·

So the story is software gets ugly when it gets less modular? This is a truism, no?

by mathattack 13y ago

dexen 13y ago
Almost; the core insight is the non-linearity of this truism.
- paganel 13y ago
  Adding to that, there's also somth in the article about "modularity" not being the default when it comes to "nature". > In nature, complexity is where the good things, such as life, happen.
  - redbad 13y ago
    > somth What?
mtwestra 13y ago
Like Dexen says, the surprise is in the non-linearity. The sudden transition from a sparsely connected to a widely connected system comes somewhat unexpected (at least to me :-) ).
PaulHoule 13y ago
In real life I've seen many projects go wrong because people modularized it in the wrong way -- often connected with a naïve faith in "encapsulation" (Complex bugs, performance problems, and crackers don't respect encapsulation.) For instance, SOA has had a new lease on life lately, for good reasons. I picked up a system that had four layers involved with doing a request; each of these layers had different serialization/deserialization logic (two submodules) and at least one submodule that would actually do the work. Debugging a problem in the system often involved a wild goose chase across 12 submodules and often changing something simple (like adding a new data field) would require all 12 modules to be changed. Even if you have a good batting average and you manage to make these changes right 90% of the time it's close to certain that making a change to that system would create a new bug. The underlying social problem isn't that "people want to do things quickly", it's that people don't see simplicity as a virtue and don't see complexity as a problem. If they valued speed, they'd pursue simplicity because you can make changes much more quickly in a simple system.
- Shish2k 13y ago
  > you can make changes much more quickly in a simple system. IME: Doing N features hackishly takes O(n^2) time; Doing them properly takes O(2n). The problem is when management sees a project as a series of several n=1 tasks, instead of one n=n project.
- mathattack 13y ago
  Thank you for the detailed commentary. Fighting for simplicity is rough because the virtue doesn't always have a champion, while every new complexity increasing function has one. At my last firm, every feature had management committee sponsorship. Simplicity? A dirty word. So I see your point. Thanks for elucidating.

So the story is software gets ugly when it gets less modular? This is a truism, no?

dexen 13y ago

Almost; the core insight is the non-linearity of this truism.

paganel 13y ago
Adding to that, there's also somth in the article about "modularity" not being the default when it comes to "nature". > In nature, complexity is where the good things, such as life, happen.
- redbad 13y ago
  > somth What?

mtwestra 13y ago

Like Dexen says, the surprise is in the non-linearity. The sudden transition from a sparsely connected to a widely connected system comes somewhat unexpected (at least to me :-) ).

PaulHoule 13y ago

In real life I've seen many projects go wrong because people modularized it in the wrong way -- often connected with a naïve faith in "encapsulation" (Complex bugs, performance problems, and crackers don't respect encapsulation.) For instance, SOA has had a new lease on life lately, for good reasons. I picked up a system that had four layers involved with doing a request; each of these layers had different serialization/deserialization logic (two submodules) and at least one submodule that would actually do the work. Debugging a problem in the system often involved a wild goose chase across 12 submodules and often changing something simple (like adding a new data field) would require all 12 modules to be changed. Even if you have a good batting average and you manage to make these changes right 90% of the time it's close to certain that making a change to that system would create a new bug. The underlying social problem isn't that "people want to do things quickly", it's that people don't see simplicity as a virtue and don't see complexity as a problem. If they valued speed, they'd pursue simplicity because you can make changes much more quickly in a simple system.

Shish2k 13y ago
> you can make changes much more quickly in a simple system. IME: Doing N features hackishly takes O(n^2) time; Doing them properly takes O(2n). The problem is when management sees a project as a series of several n=1 tasks, instead of one n=n project.
mathattack 13y ago
Thank you for the detailed commentary. Fighting for simplicity is rough because the virtue doesn't always have a champion, while every new complexity increasing function has one. At my last firm, every feature had management committee sponsorship. Simplicity? A dirty word. So I see your point. Thanks for elucidating.