Why do we need modules at all? (2011)

Armstrong's proposal reminds me a bit of Emacs extensions. Since Emacs Lisp doesn't have namespaces or modules, all functions must be uniquely named which is done by prefixing them: foo-replace. This is not that different from having a module foo, as Armstrong notes: "managing a namespace with namees like foo.bar.baz.z is just as complex as managing a namespace with names like foo_bar_baz_z". But what it enabled is an Emacs community where single functions are freely shared, for example on…

Whatever you think of the idea, I think the reasoning here is interesting and instructive. 1. Start by questioning a long held assumption ("Do we need modules? Why? Is it because we stored functions in files?" Etc...) 2. Consider alternatives / what ifs. ("What if we used a database instead of files?") 3. Think through implications of the alternatives ("How would we identify functions?") IMHO, this is a powerful technique for generating new ideas. Step 4, not explicitly performed here…

Joe was such a creative thinker, and he was never (that I could tell) embarrassed by the prospect of an idea of his proving to be a poor one, so it was always interesting to hear him talk. Genuinely curious, thinking outside the box (writing a new programming language on top of Prolog?), and he treated people with utmost respect. I was a nobody lucky enough to escort him around Chicago one day when he was attending a conference, and…

This seems like an exaggeration, but look who is saying it: Joe Armstrong.