Talk:Modular programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 16:55, 4 December 2009

Revision as of 00:53, 24 October 2010

Line 62:

How can we request the blocking of [[Special:Contributions/24.149.222.5|24.149.222.5]]? This is a anonymous user with static IP who has been vandalising this and other articles for the period of more than a month. See [[Special:Contributions/24.149.222.5|his "contributions"]]. We can safely undo in an automatic way all his changes to any article too. --[[User:Antonielly|Antonielly]] ([[User talk:Antonielly|talk]]) 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

== List of "modular programming" languages ==

The list of languages supporting the concept of a "module" seem to just grep for the term "module" in the language manuals - Java is not included, I guess, because currently it supports packages and not "modules". I would remove such a list altogether, both because it lacks a citation, and because it seems Original Research, and stupid one.

Let me show how stupid it is: it seems that the next Java revision will support the concept of modules, imitating the concept of assemblies in .NET. That's just a packaging unit above the "package" level - a module is made of more packages. So it should be included. But in Python, a package is a collection of modules. In C#, an assembly is also a collection of... namespaces (I'm not sure). Yet, we are all talking about the same thing - more or less.

It would make more sense to define what a module is and show different forms of support for modularization. C has includes, essentially a hack. In C++ you have includes and namespaces. In modern languages, instead, accessing a namespace automatically looks for the definitions related to a namespace - "using namespace std;" does not include any header, while Python's "import os" actually imports all the declaration from the "os" module, putting them into a namespace also named "os".

Disclaimer: I'm a PhD student in Programming Languages but I never formally studied a definition of a "module" programming language construct in general. However, I've studied deeply the underlying design principle - and the current article is quite bad at describing it. I'm therefore flagging relevant sections with appropriate further templates. --[[User:Blaisorblade|Blaisorblade]] ([[User talk:Blaisorblade|talk]]) 00:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)