Mongol Herdsman wrote:

> Vitaliy wrote:
>>> Choose one, Bolivar cannot
>>> carry double.
>> 
>> No need to pick one. The two can (and should) be practiced in parallel,
>> and making your code more cohesive can at the same time make it less
>> coupled, and vice versa.
> 
> This was "Self documenting code vs. Comments" thread. The question was kind of:
> When we break the "big" sub down into smaller ones with good
> meaningfull names, and the smaller one is holding some unique
> functionality that will never be reused in other subs; does this
> increase understandability of the code and how it will affect "loose
> coupling" and "tight cohesion" properties of the system.
> 
> Let's see,  yes, the code will be easier to understand, but what with
> "loose coupling" and "tight cohesion"?
> - "tight cohesion": yes, the unique functionality will be separated
> out of the rest, making the rest more "cohesive";
> - "loose coupling" - _NO_, there is no need to make the separated
> functionality be "loosely coupled" to the parent sub, for it won't be
> used anywhere else in the code, just separate it out.
> 
> That's why "Choose one (tight cohesion in that case), Bolivar cannot
> carry double".

Even though in this specific case you may not loosen coupling, tighten
cohesion and improve maintainability/readability all at the same time, you
still improve maintainability/readability without downside.

So what is your point?

(In other cases, you still can loosen coupling and tighten cohesion at the
same time.)

> The idea of breaking a system down into subsystems is trivial.
> Non-trivial is doing that practically wise.

Of course. What's getting you there (to do it practically wise) is, among
others, practice in doing it.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist