Talk:Software component

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computer science Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet Cleanup : Computer science articles needing attention Computer science articles needing expert attention Copyedit : Computing Expand : Computer science Infobox : Computer science articles without infoboxes Maintain : Timeline of computing 2020–present Photo : Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists) Computing articles needing images Stubs : Computer science stubs Unreferenced : WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs Project-related : Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Recent edits to this page have incorrect/inaccurate info. And deletions have reduced it's value significantly.

WRT "A software component is a distinct part of a software system that provides a clear interface with other parts." The interface need not be clear :) and IMO "interface with other parts" does on convey the subtle but important point that a component's interface is exposed by the component and consumed by something else. It is not really the interface between multiple components as that IMO implies something more than it is. I guess could say "...to other parts".

Saying that a function is a component does not contradict the first sentence definition, but a function is not considered a component. Why? IDK. But, it's not. It has an interface and it's distinct, but it's not considered a component. ... I guess the definition might need a tweak.

Engine? Software engine is not a commonly used term. That is has an article is IMO a mistake. It's WP inventing a term. The Software engine page is basically a list of software things with the name 'engine' in it.

The desirable characteristics are critical information for this topic. I assume you removed it since it's not cited. Thing is, much of this article is not cited. If remove all uncited info there would only be history. IMO better to have uncited info than none.

Modeling, frameworks and development belong on this page.

Removal of the OLE and COM history seems over the top too.

The technologies list was low value.

The see also items seemed relevant.

I plan to re-add and re-word some stuff. Stevebroshar (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a flurry of edits yesterday and some revisions, I realized the lede needed citations, so I was intending to do that today (prior to your post). That's now done, and the article is well-cited with better definitions.

I've moved Frameworks back to this article; it's a more general thing than CSBE and does fit better here.

As it stands, I think both articles are in much better shape now. (Thanks for doing the initial migration from CSBE a few days ago to get the ball rolling here.) Anything more that's added should be cited. -Pmffl (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pmffl I do not like to be negative, but I think the article gets worse with each of your edits.

How is separation of concerns better than encapsulation (computer programming) for the word encapsulation??

The desired characteristics of a component is overly short and its awkward for a second sentence.

modular unit seems overly specific. What does modular imply? what does unit imply?

A component does not necessarily encapsulate specific functionality. That is a desired characteristic though.

"Different types of components can be used to construct a software system, including third-party components" is awkward since you say different types and then list one thing.

You use framework but don't describe what it means.

The article has become word salad.

What is your goal for the changes you are making? To add cites? That good and noble. But, IMO it's more important to write understandable prose that is correct.

I myself have also significantly re-written articles. But I try to maintain all the pertinent info. You seem to disregard existing content and start over from scratch. I think it goes beyond bold to arrogant. Stevebroshar (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

separation of concerns is better because it's broader than the other article, which (understandably) focuses on OOP.

The "modular unit" definition comes directly from the reference. That is quite literally what the word "component" means in a general sense (as well as in software dev).

As for your broader criticisms, I disagree. The two articles are better now because a) better sourced and b) more concise, to the point.

Like I said before, more info can be added, but it should be cited with references. -Pmffl (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]