A Philosophy of Software Design, 2nd Edition
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • 繁体中文
GitHub
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • 繁体中文
GitHub
  • Introduction
  • Preface
  • Chapter 1 Introduction
  • Chapter 2 The Nature of Complexity
  • Chapter 3 Working Code Isn’t Enough(Strategic vs. Tactical Programming)
  • Chapter 4 Modules Should Be Deep
  • Chapter 5 Information Hiding (and Leakage)
  • Chapter 6 General-Purpose Modules are Deeper
  • Chapter 7 Different Layer, Different Abstraction
  • Chapter 8 Pull Complexity Downwards
  • Chapter 9 Better Together Or Better Apart?
  • Chapter 10 Define Errors Out Of Existence
  • Chapter 11 Design it Twice
  • Chapter 12 Why Write Comments? The Four Excuses
  • Chapter 13 Comments Should Describe Things that Aren’t Obvious from the Code
  • Chapter 14 Choosing Names
  • Chapter 15 Write The Comments First
  • Chapter 16 Modifying Existing Code
  • Chapter 17 Consistency
  • Chapter 18 Code Should be Obvious
  • Chapter 19 Software Trends
  • Chapter 20 Designing for Performance
  • Chapter 21 Decide What Matters
  • Chapter 22 Conclusion
  • Summary

Chapter 4 Modules Should Be Deep

One of the most important techniques for managing software complexity is to design systems so that developers only need to face a small fraction of the overall complexity at any given time. This approach is called modular design, and this chapter presents its basic principles.

4.1 Modular design

4.2 What’s in an interface?

4.3 Abstractions

4.4 Deep modules

4.5 Shallow modules

4.6 Classitis

4.7 Examples: Java and Unix I/O

4.8 Conclusion

By separating the interface of a module from its implementation, we can hide the complexity of the implementation from the rest of the system. Users of a module need only understand the abstraction provided by its interface. The most important issue in designing classes and other modules is to make them deep, so that they have simple interfaces for the common use cases, yet still provide significant functionality. This maximizes the amount of complexity that is concealed.

1There exist languages, mostly in the research community, where the overall behavior of a method or function can be described formally using a specification language. The specification can be checked automatically to ensure that it matches the implementation. An interesting question is whether such a formal specification could replace the informal parts of an interface. My current opinion is that an interface described in English is likely to be more intuitive and understandable for developers than one written in a formal specification language.

Last Updated: 5/14/25, 1:24 AM
Prev
Chapter 3 Working Code Isn’t Enough(Strategic vs. Tactical Programming)
Next
Chapter 5 Information Hiding (and Leakage)