Timeline for What is the opposite of decoupled (computer science)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jul 20, 2015 at 7:12 | comment | added | Roy T. | As a programmer (10+ years) I've never heard of the Big Ball of Mud! I have heard of spaghetti code (a term much more popular than Big Ball of Mud according to Google). However, in normal (semi-formal) conversations I would always use "tightly coupled." So again, as other have in these comments, I would recommend against using big ball of mud! | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 16:52 | comment | added | Erick G. Hagstrom | The Big Ball of Mud, while often exhibiting tight coupling, is not itself a synonym thereof. This answer is simply incorrect, though evocative. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 14:07 | comment | added | John Bode | My only criticism of this response is that code does not have to be spaghettified to exhibit tight coupling; any two pieces of code that share state through globals are tightly coupled, even if the individual pieces are otherwise well-structured. | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 1:49 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | … In many domains, they are the only things that have been shown to work. Indeed, they work where loftier approaches have yet to demonstrate that they can compete. It is not our purpose to condemn BIG BALLS OF MUD." | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 1:48 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | "We think the patterns herein stand alongside other work regarding software architecture […]. Still, we do not consider these patterns to be anti-patterns. There are good reasons that good programmers build BIG BALLS OF MUD. It may well be that the economics of the software world are such that the market moves so fast that long term architectural ambitions are foolhardy, […]. The success of these approaches, in any case, is undeniable, and seals their pattern-hood. People build BIG BALLS OF MUD because they work. … | |
| Jul 19, 2015 at 1:45 | comment | added | Jörg W Mittag | The term Big Ball Of Mud has been used at least since the 70s, originally to describe Lisp. The Big Ball Of Mud Architecture Pattern which the linked article describes is at least as well-known in the pattern community as other architectural patterns such as MVC, but even people who are not members of the pattern community often have heard of it. It was required reading in my software engineering class, for example. However, it is not meant to be negative and/or pejorative. This is made very clear in the Conclusion: | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | Hot Licks | "Spaghetti coding" is something else. And I've never (in 50 years in the industry) seen "big ball of mud". | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 18:12 | vote | accept | Brett Stottlemyer | ||
| Jul 18, 2015 at 16:25 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | Jeff's blog post is well worth a read; it's better formatted than its source material (which is also worth reading, but harder going). There are more terms than this in it. | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 16:19 | history | edited | Andrew Leach♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2015 at 16:17 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | I've never seen it used before, either. I think I shall do my best to make the phrase more widely known. | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 16:15 | comment | added | Brett Stottlemyer | "Big Ball of Mud" is certainly negative and descriptive. I've never seen it used before, though. You mentioned disentangled, which brings up "entangled" which seems very appropriate. Can you add entangled as part of your answer? | |
| Jul 18, 2015 at 16:02 | history | answered | Andrew Leach♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |