Re: [tlug] [OT] Good IT Resume

["Josh Glover" <jmglov@example.com>]

On 02/08/07, burlingk@example.com <burlingk@example.com> wrote:

> I have on a number of occasions been frustrated by a package
> that was not compatible with a newer version of a library, and
> it was hell tracking down the older version.

This is not a problem with modularisation, this is a problem with your
distro's package manager's dependency tracking.

> All it takes is for one set of developers to change directions
> and everyone else suddenly has to choose between using what works
> with their app as it currently stands, or doing a virtual rewrite
> in order to bennefit from the new features of a newer version of
> the library in question.

Well, this is another very good reason why people should not break
backwards compatibility unless absolutely necessary.

> I am not saying that monolythic code blocks are the way
> to go.  I am simply saying that splitting everything into
> blocks and divying the blocks out is not the "Easy Way,"
> or even the "Better Way" in all cases. ^^;

No, it is the Only Way, unless, like Curt, you own a company that is
small enough that you can treat the code as one block. But even then,
if you want to use other code, you have to learn to play with modular
code.

-- 
Cheers,
Josh