I think you have a pretty good idea in general here (I’d describe it as a tool, not a virtue, because it’s not universally applicable), but your language gets in the way.
First “Compartmentalization,” while encapsulating the concept you refer to, -also- encapsulates a lot of negative connotation among rationalist types. “Abstraction” is already a pretty good all-purpose word.
Second, a lot of what you’re calling “compartmentalization” is already referred to as “reductionism”.
(Also, I do a lot of maintenance work for a product that is ten years old; the 3 C’s ceased to be meaningfully applicable in most of the code years ago. Considering only the level you’re actually working on is a luxury that sometimes can’t be afforded.)
You’re right. The elements of reductionism in the examples are unrelated to the topic. I’m attached to the examples, but I should either demarcate them as a separate skill or remove them.
I think you have a pretty good idea in general here (I’d describe it as a tool, not a virtue, because it’s not universally applicable), but your language gets in the way.
First “Compartmentalization,” while encapsulating the concept you refer to, -also- encapsulates a lot of negative connotation among rationalist types. “Abstraction” is already a pretty good all-purpose word.
Second, a lot of what you’re calling “compartmentalization” is already referred to as “reductionism”.
(Also, I do a lot of maintenance work for a product that is ten years old; the 3 C’s ceased to be meaningfully applicable in most of the code years ago. Considering only the level you’re actually working on is a luxury that sometimes can’t be afforded.)
You’re right. The elements of reductionism in the examples are unrelated to the topic. I’m attached to the examples, but I should either demarcate them as a separate skill or remove them.