http://msmvps.com/blogs/kathleen/archive/2007/11/14/looking-at-the-list-1-of-6-or-7.aspxI posted a list of ways that development has changed since the days we thought we knew how to design applications. I want to clarify a few things on this. This is about design or approaching architecture - it goes beyond OOD per se. I started out fromenCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)http://msmvps.com/blogs/kathleen/archive/2007/11/14/looking-at-the-list-1-of-6-or-7.aspx#1446098Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:25:32 GMTd67277c4-116b-43f1-b688-e9ef184ea916:1446098Are you keeping up with software development? - .Net Smoothie<p>Pingback from &nbsp;Are you keeping up with software development? - .Net Smoothie</p> <img src="http://msmvps.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1446098" width="1" height="1">http://msmvps.com/blogs/kathleen/archive/2007/11/14/looking-at-the-list-1-of-6-or-7.aspx#1436550Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:19:33 GMTd67277c4-116b-43f1-b688-e9ef184ea916:1436550Siderite<p>The link to the docx file is broken.</p> <p>And as a comment to your article: aren't all these &quot;new ways&quot; dependent on the hardware? At first there was no concept of layer, then, as the technology allowed, layers of abstraction were either added or expanded.</p> <p>But shouldn't the compilers try to break the onion of layers and get to the result as best as possible? I mean the programmers and code reviewers need layers to better understand what is going on, but the computer doesn't need them.</p> <p>I believe that the next step is to make the compilers break the encapsulation when possible. Wouldn't it be great if one could code in layers and the actual compiled result would work like the good old fashioned &quot;one-piece&quot; software?</p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://msmvps.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=1436550" width="1" height="1">