Talk:Software component

Recent edits removed too much and changed meanings
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)


 * 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 CBSE 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 CBSE 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)
 * @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)


 * separation of concerns seemed better because it's broader than the other article, which focused more on OOP; but the other one is fine too.
 * 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) uses the Schmidt ref to state what is probably the most salient point regarding CBSE
 * Like I said before, more info and explanations can be added, but it should be cited with references. -Pmffl (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you do. You seem to follow the strict policy of cited or delete it. To be blunt, I find that to be a bad mindset. In general, strict adherence to dogma results in poor outcome. Good writing involves following rules when it makes sense. It involves breaking them when it makes sense. It's more important to be right, clear and complete than to have a perfect citing. Verifiable; not verified. ... And as I said before, I too have made major changes to articles, but you basically tossed this one and started over. I find that disrespectful. You also seem to have no regard for my input. Not a team player. Do not like. Will not subscribe. Stevebroshar (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But, the word with the link is encapsulation! It doesn't seem odd to you that the word encapsulation links to something other than encapsulation? (shaking head emoji) If separation of concerns is a better idea, then change the shown text to separation of concerns. Stevebroshar (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You think tutorial notes is a solid source??? Written by a dude with 75 followers; a nobody (sorry Pankaj). One can find any thought, idea, article that supports what you want. Using any ol' site to justify what you write in WP is not good practice IMO. Stevebroshar (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pmffl It's been a while since you hacked up this article. Since you completely disregarded my input I find your behavior to be counter to community; working together. You have your ideas and have no interest in considering someone else's input. A tenant of WP is to be bold which you are. But that does not mean barreling ahead without any concern for others. It's about working together. That means building consensus and compromise. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cut the condescending tone and lies (i.e. not incorporating your feedback which is patently false). -Pmffl (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)