But, at the end of the day, I don't know how to make half-decent long-term decisions *without* evaluating coupling & cohesion. I have to evaluate a bunch of other stuff too! Much of that "other stuff" is actually more important than coupling & cohesion. But C&C is always there.
I don't personally find this very compelling, but that's my own set of biases (I have correlated beliefs like, Death of the Author, descriptivism over prescriptivism, harm reduction in UX, etc.). I'm not saying Rich would say that, but I think that's the defense presented here.
-
-
Your summary of your interpretation of the talk is v. clear and is, what, 10 tweets? If that's what was meant, why didn't he say that? It's a long talk, there was plenty of time. Instead, there are much longer sections that could be read as a jeremiad against types and objects.
-
Maybe I'm also biased because I didn't see the talk until I'd seen it cited maybe twenty times in a way that you'd say is wrong, but I don't think it's so surprising that the talk would be so widely cited in "incorrect" ways, if your interpretation is correct.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.