in reply to Re: H.O.P && aXML
in thread H.O.P && aXML

I frankly admit that I have come to insist that all of the code which may influence the behavior of a particular piece of software must always be “in plain sight.”

That's one of the big design goals of functional programming. Admittedly it takes work to think in terms of higher-order functions as abstractions, but you get a lot of power to create a language which makes the important things visible and hides the plumbing.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: H.O.P && aXML
by locked_user sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Jul 19, 2011 at 20:12 UTC

    Yeah, yeah, I hear ya, and I know, but I have quite a lot of battle-scars (and paychecks...) which came from “un-coupling” too-tightly coupled code.   Several of those experiences came from dealing with clients who had either just acquired another company, or had just been acquired.   All was well until someone wearing a suit and tie walked into the room with a square wheel and said, “he’s part of the family now, so he has to roll with the rest of us, and by the way we need it next Tuesday.”   Elegance favors consistency, and sometimes, “aye, there’s the rub.”

    I’m not meaning to make any blanket pronouncement here ... my dissertation is not riding on this ... but I do simply observe that there are two sides to every coin.   This does serve as a check to unbridled enthusiasm.