<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A Unified Theory of Software Design, Architecture and Everything</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.johanneslink.net/2009/03/06/a-unified-theory-of-software-design/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.johanneslink.net/2009/03/06/a-unified-theory-of-software-design/</link>
	<description>Johannes Link's Travels through Software Devlopment Space</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 08:38:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: softestpawn</title>
		<link>http://blog.johanneslink.net/2009/03/06/a-unified-theory-of-software-design/#comment-190</link>
		<dc:creator>softestpawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:59:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.johanneslink.net/?p=175#comment-190</guid>
		<description>Good post. I think johannes is talking about the trade off in runtime flexibility vs compile time explicit trust. As you say I think the runtime flexibility is often overrated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post. I think johannes is talking about the trade off in runtime flexibility vs compile time explicit trust. As you say I think the runtime flexibility is often overrated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: johanneslink</title>
		<link>http://blog.johanneslink.net/2009/03/06/a-unified-theory-of-software-design/#comment-162</link>
		<dc:creator>johanneslink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.johanneslink.net/?p=175#comment-162</guid>
		<description>@marko Maybe you can give an example for: 
&lt;blockquote&gt; Many “dependcy hiding techniques” I have seen, also lower the probability that the Party A has to adapt [...] So I actually often prefer a  few strong explicit dependencies over a lot of weaker implicit dependencies.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I have difficulties to discuss that in an abstract way only.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@marko Maybe you can give an example for: </p>
<blockquote><p> Many “dependcy hiding techniques” I have seen, also lower the probability that the Party A has to adapt [...] So I actually often prefer a  few strong explicit dependencies over a lot of weaker implicit dependencies.
</p></blockquote>
<p>I have difficulties to discuss that in an abstract way only.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marko</title>
		<link>http://blog.johanneslink.net/2009/03/06/a-unified-theory-of-software-design/#comment-158</link>
		<dc:creator>marko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:10:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.johanneslink.net/?p=175#comment-158</guid>
		<description>You are saying that &quot;explicit dependency is obviously preferable over implicit&quot; and so techniques that hide dependencies may be problematic. I agree with you on this one.

But it has a problem: Many &quot;dependcy hiding techniques&quot; I have seen, also lower the probability that the Party A has to adapt - albeit only to a minor degree. So numerical the hiding may seem like a good idea. Especially because these hidings show up in metrics so unproportionally favourable they are so popular.

So I actually often prefer a few strong explicit dependencies over a lot of weaker implicit dependencies. But while you mention explicit vs. implicit it is not considered in your definition of Good Design.

But besides that: A very good article. Thought provoking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are saying that &#8220;explicit dependency is obviously preferable over implicit&#8221; and so techniques that hide dependencies may be problematic. I agree with you on this one.</p>
<p>But it has a problem: Many &#8220;dependcy hiding techniques&#8221; I have seen, also lower the probability that the Party A has to adapt &#8211; albeit only to a minor degree. So numerical the hiding may seem like a good idea. Especially because these hidings show up in metrics so unproportionally favourable they are so popular.</p>
<p>So I actually often prefer a few strong explicit dependencies over a lot of weaker implicit dependencies. But while you mention explicit vs. implicit it is not considered in your definition of Good Design.</p>
<p>But besides that: A very good article. Thought provoking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
