Comment by akkartik
10 years ago
I've been having a long-running private discussion with the author about this. My anti-modularity stance: http://akkartik.name/post/modularity. However this is a sane use of modularity. My point is mostly that just adding more module boundaries without thought isn't always a net win. So I guess I'd change the statement you quoted to "the right separation of concerns." And the right separation takes trial and error to discover.
Well, of course, your separation of concerns is only as useful as the boundary is well thought.
Modularity is not a magic wand (Brooks' "silver bullets" aren't an strong enough concept for what you are debunking) that makes all the problems of software developing go away.
Not sure if you found me super insightful :) or yawn obvious, but I was responding to the quote that modularity is the solution to complexity. We're surrounded by software that made that mistake and ended up adding complexity instead of reducing it.
To tell the truth, I can't decide :)
You are fighting a straw men. Yes, it's a straw men that some people argue that it's a good fighter, but I'd rather just ignore those people.
By the other side, you are attacking it by an angle that I've never thought about.