Revision as of 17:56, 4 August 2006 edit YORD-the-unknown (talk \| contribs) 104 edits →Modularity (programming) vs Modular Programming ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:46, 1 January 2007 edit undo Vreejack (talk \| contribs) 103 edits No edit summary Next edit →
Line 1: Uttal, as far as I can tell, is not a staunch defender of ___domain-general processing, or at least not in The New Phrenology. The issue in TNP is whether using neuroimaging techniques to localize cognitive functions is a plausible line of inquiry. Whether you can localize cognitive functions and whether these functions are independent modules are not logical equivalants. This is a serious misrepresentation. A better source of ___domain general processing would be "Rethinking Innateness" by Jeff Elman, et al. MIT Press 1996. ---Does this have anything to do with the topic? Did someone botch a cut-and-paste? And what is up with these two biology references? Guimerá, R. & L.A. Nunes Amaral (2005). Functional Cartography of Complex Metabolic Networks. Nature, 433: 895-900. Yang, A.S. (2001). Modularity, Evolvability and Adaptive Radiations. Evolution and Development, 3:2, 59-72. Are these really applicable to Modularity (programming)? [[User:Vreejack\|Vreejack]] 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC) == Modularity (programming) vs Modular Programming ==

Talk:Modular programming: Difference between revisions