Content deleted Content added
Line 72:
I wondered about this too, and thought it had been eliminated on the basis of missing interface-implementation separation. But on those grounds, the scripting languages (that apparantly were added later )have to go too
[[Special:Contributions/88.159.66.26|88.159.66.26]] ([[User talk:88.159.66.26|talk]]) 20:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would agree that C's form of modularisation is #includes. Whilst you could write several .c files and #include them all into one big, compilable file, that isn't what's usually done. Instead, individual .c files are compiled into object files, which in turn are linked together (with other libraries of object code) into an executable.
I think the namespace thing is a bit of a red herring too, since you can have a highly modular program within a single namespace, and multiple namespaces in a monolithic program. Namespaces are used either to avoid naming conflicts, or for some abstract reason (e.g. to delineate ownership).
I agree that this article is poorly written and self-contradictory. It begins with a definition that's dubious at best, but goes on to provide a great definition of a monolithic program - any program where the smallest usable component is the program itself. I think as far I'm concerned Modular programming is amonolithic programming (i.e. any program that is not monolithic is modular by definition).
[[User:Djonesuk|Djonesuk]] ([[User talk:Djonesuk|talk]]) 16:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
== Old stuff ==
| |||