Hughes claims FP provides two (2) kinds of glue: functional composition and lazy evaluation.
It turns out lazy evaluation is actually not really a useful kind of glue, so subtract that one from the two initially presented:
2 - 1 = 1
> Does it mainly bash John Hughes for bragging about how good FP is?
> Or does it mainly advertise for the author's language, Objective Smalltalk?
Neither. It notes that John Hughes had a fantastic insight, but one that seems to not get a lot of attention: we need lots of different kinds of glue.
And yes, the article somewhat assumes that you either know what a connector is, or that you would read the linked Mary Shaw article to figure it out, as it is foundational for the field of software architecture. If you don't know what a connector is and don't care to find out, the article probably won't make a lot of sense to you.
And it's good for me to learn that apparently a lot of people don't know what a connector is, so I'll have to keep that in mind when communicating about this stuff. Thanks!
Hughes claims FP provides two (2) kinds of glue: functional composition and lazy evaluation.
It turns out lazy evaluation is actually not really a useful kind of glue, so subtract that one from the two initially presented:
2 - 1 = 1
> Does it mainly bash John Hughes for bragging about how good FP is?
> Or does it mainly advertise for the author's language, Objective Smalltalk?
Neither. It notes that John Hughes had a fantastic insight, but one that seems to not get a lot of attention: we need lots of different kinds of glue.
And yes, the article somewhat assumes that you either know what a connector is, or that you would read the linked Mary Shaw article to figure it out, as it is foundational for the field of software architecture. If you don't know what a connector is and don't care to find out, the article probably won't make a lot of sense to you.
And it's good for me to learn that apparently a lot of people don't know what a connector is, so I'll have to keep that in mind when communicating about this stuff. Thanks!
You could start with the main Wikipedia article on Software Arcitecture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture
Or one of the others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture_description_langu... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture_descript...
They cover the basics and have lots of references.
Or take a look at one of the books:
https://www.amazon.com/Software-Architecture-Perspectives-Em...
https://www.amazon.com/Software-Architecture-Foundations-The...
Here's a taxonomy of connectors, that should give you a quick overview:
https://isr.uci.edu/events/wesas2000/position-papers/mehta.p...
And of course there is the classic from 1994, published in IEEE Software: "Architectural Mismatch: Why Reuse Is So Hard"
https://www.ics.uci.edu/~taylor/ICS221/papers/ArchMismatch.p...
Turns out that one of the reasons Reuse is So Hard™ is that the connectors don't match.
With the followup 14 years later: "Architectural Mismatch: Why Reuse Is Still So Hard"
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=107...
Turns out that the connectors still don't match.
Cheers.