Jump to content

Talk:Coupling (computer programming)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ligulem (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 10 November 2005 (Merge from Low-Coupling / High-Cohesion pattern). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Renaming to : Coupling (Computer science)

I propose to rename this entry to Coupling (Computer science) as this the most used terme by the specialists of the filed along with Cohesion, we need then to put a disambiguation link at the begining of Coupling. --Khalid hassani 14:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that coupling is used more than the dependency? Also I am not so sure what you mean by specialists. By that, do you mean computer scientists? computer programmers? hackers? -- Taku 20:10, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
by specialists I mean computer scientists and programmers, I have always heard about the couple coupling/cohesion as dual concepts et not dependency/cohesion. I think that there are in facts two different concepts in this entry, dependency which is in fact, rather related to RPM and packages, and coupling which is used in Object Oriented design, the two concepts are from two diffrents cultures, Linux hackers for the first and programmers using Object oriented languages for the second.--Khalid hassani 21:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would also rename this entry to Coupling (Computer science). In the article itself, the term "Coupling" occurs 28 times, whereas "Dependency" occurs only 6 times (not counting the name of the article). And Coupling#Computer programming points to here. I'm going to do the rename (maybe in about 8 or 10 hours). — Adrian | Talk 23:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article to Coupling (computer science). — Adrian | Talk 12:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gains in the software development process

"...the gains in the software development process are greater than the value of the running performance gain."

I feel that this statement may be more opinionated than factual. Perhaps omission of this would be prudent?