[aosd-discuss] defining modular reasoning

[Mik Kersten]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at aosd.net [mailto:discuss-bounces at aosd.net] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Aldrich
...
> I'm an empiricist about modularity.  
...
> AOP without tool support can in some cases compromise the fundamental
rationales for modularity
...

I'm an empiricist about tool support.  Mira, Rickard, and Ron have already
made all the good points about its role, and I just want to add one bit of
empirical perspective.  The vast majority of industry developers wouldn't
dream of programming without tool support.  A couple recent surveys place
the use of IDEs around 95%:

http://datadino.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4
http://servlets.com/polls/results.tea?name=javaide 

And we know that there is no demand for the AspectJ Emacs plug-in.  So while
it may be interesting to think about "AOP without tool support", I don't
think that it lends a practical perspective on the important issues of
adopting AOP for building real systems.  Emacs and Vi won't die, but their
reign is officially over, and we can now count on program structure that's
not explicit in ASCII to be made explicit by tool support. 

Mik

--
http://kerstens.org/mik