Content deleted Content added
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m talk page general fixes using AWB (10319) |
|||
Line 111:
I would describe modular programming as analogous with [[legos]]. You start at some point, and build up. Each block is a piece of the greater structure. You can move blocks (or groups of blocks) to other structures copying their functionality to the new structure without everything falling apart. They´re both interdependent, and independent at the same time. The whole part in the article about trying to minimize dependencies is absolutely wrong, it's more the direction that the dependencies are going, they should be upper to lower. As in no foundational component can be reliant on a component that is less foundational. That is to say, lego blocks sit on each other, therefore they rely on their foundation, not the other way around. There my 2 cent. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.45.180.110|96.45.180.110]] ([[User talk:96.45.180.110|talk]]) 00:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I would also like to lend my voice to this - I'm no expert in programming but I was really surprised to see the list and that the writer asserted that even object-oriented (OO) languages like Java and C++ did not, at any time, support modularity. I would have thought that the concept of OO programming naturally lends itself to that of modularity and I find it illogical for C++ not to "support" modularity. This is so, so odd and I would appreciate if the experts among us can ensure that it is clarified in the article or let the list be expunged! - [[User:BroVic|BroVic]] ([[User talk:BroVic|talk]]) 06:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
== Old stuff ==
| |||