PLEASE READ THIS ONE far18 (addendum)

[Francois-Rene Rideau]

(Addendum to message far18)

Here is what I  first wrote about modules:

 I don't think the module/library terminology, how is called such
 library, etc, is an important issue; of course objects will come in
 logically linked groups. The best way to see which objects to go in which
 groups is just to program them. When we do code, we'll well see what's the
 best place for everything, provided we well did define the proper system
 philosophy (remember the Tao of Programming).
  Also, there's no point at naming a group of objects and then force them to
 be grouped. Objects are just here, linked to others the way that fits best.
 If some routines naturally group (for example, real number routines for a
 same non-hardware implemented format), let them group; if they don't
 (for example object sharing and memory allocation), let them don't.
 Let's not put arbitrary borders between modules, and then see conflict
 emerge between them, but mostly inside them (as europeans, mostly french ;-(
 and english men, did when leaving Africa)


 And as for MOOSE being a programmer's system, not a user's system, I'd say
that there's no fundamental difference between a programmer and a user:
there  are only  higher or lower level, more or less specialized users.

	   ,
	Fare