The way I see it, there's more general problem to that - a lack of linguistic apparatus to constructively discuss software design. In the subject that's being discussed there's obviously some property, a part of something bigger and I can't help feeling it is something fundamental (same as you, if I do understand correctly). It's a pity that we're not able to talk about these basic things, that we do not have that model, that theory of software design with all the basic forces identified. Is it really that we haven't moved any further than coupling and cohesion? Or am I just an ignorant by not knowing more. Obviously we're trading one thing for another. The question is what for what and why? I'm sure everyone could think of many concepts on the spot, but we're doing that development, that software evolution every day for some time now and we don't have that figured out yet, what the hell. It might be that it sounds like just "academic stuff", but if at the end of the day you're trying to convince each other speaking of beauty of particular design choice then guess what - joke's on you. Moreover I believe it's just a start because as soon as more complex ideas come into play, such as TDD in the article, we are lost like a child in the woods. That stuff's what we have not figured out at all. Maybe, just maybe it's only because recently I'm fixated on the lack of methodical grasp on software design by programmers.. or it is my inner scientist who's responsible for myself seeing this problem that way :) Can't help feeling there are that basic forces which shape our design - viewed both as a structure and as a process.. we're just not able to see them yet. I would really love to see people studying something like "philosophy of software design", people exploring, giving full rein to their imagination. We had alchemy before chemistry, astrology before astronomy, philosophy before.. pretty much every science - damn, we need that creative process! Hope I didn't digress to much.. :)