> then the definition of the "shell" and "core" becomes problematic in this comparison
I agree -- if you're trying to make the words "shell" and "core" mean the same things between FCIS and GCSS, or identify the same parts of a program, then there will be problems. I think FCIS and GCSS are just two different ways of analyzing a program into pieces. Just as the number 8 can be seen through addition as 3 + 8 and through multiplication as 2 * 4, a program can be analyzed in multiple ways. If you view a program through the lens of FCIS, you expect to see a broad region of the program in which side-effects don't occur and a narrow region in which they do. If you view a program through the lens of GCSS, you expect to see broad parts of the program that solve general problems, and narrower regions in which those problems are instantiated in specific. The narrower regions are all "shell"-shaped, but that doesn't mean they are "the" shell. They have in common simply that they wrap a bulk of functionality to interface it to a larger context.
> At the core, things can be more integrated than at the boundary, and so it can have more business-specific rules.
I tend to disagree. Decomposition is a fundamental part of software engineering: we decompose a large problem into smaller ones, solve those, them compose those solutions into a solution to the large problem (c.f. Parnas' "On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules"). It is often easier to solve a more general problem than the one originally given (Polya's principle). Combining the two yields GCSS.
A solution to each individual small problem can be construed as having its own generic core, and the principles used in composing sibling solutions constitute the specific shells that wrap them, allow them to interface, and together implement a solution to a higher-level problem.
Because there are multiple of these "cores", each solving a decomposed part of the top-level problem, it's hard for me to see how "At the core, things can be more integrated than at the boundary".
> The definition question is, if you take an application, where is the business logic, is it in the "core" or not?
I don't mean to be a sophist, but I think I need a more precise meaning of "business logic" before I can answer this question. In the process of solving successively smaller (and more general) problems, we abstract away from the totality of the business problem being solved, and address smaller and less-specific aspects of that problem. It may be that each subproblem's solution is architected as an individual instance of FCIS, as is often argued for microservice architectures; or that each subproblem is purely functional and only the top-level solution is wrapped in an imperative core; or anywhere in between. Needless to say, I think that choice is orthogonal.
As a result, I would say that the business logic itself has been factorized and distributed across the many subproblems and their solutions, and that indeed the "specific shell"s that are responsible for specializing solutions toward the specific case of the business need may necessarily include business logic. For instance, when automating a business process, one often needs to perform a complex step A before a complex step B. While both A and B might be independently solvable, orchestrating them together is still "business logic", because they need to be performed in order according to business needs.
(In all of this, perhaps you can see why I don't think the "core" and "shell" of FCIS should be identified with the "core" and "shell" of GCSS. Words are allowed to have contextual meanings!)
Sure, but this discussion is about FCIS, that's the context, and the GP should consider that.
" think I need a more precise meaning of "business logic" before I can answer this question"
Well, some examples. A tax application - the tax calculation according to the law. A word processor - layouting and rendering engine. A video game - something that calculates the state of the world, according to the rules of the game.
So a game is a good example where the core can be more specialized than the shell. You can imagine a generic UI library shared by a bunch of games, but a generic game rules engine - that's just a programming language.
"Decomposition is a fundamental part of software engineering: we decompose a large problem into smaller ones, solve those, them compose those solutions into a solution to the large problem"
There is a big misconception in SW engineering that the above decomposition always exists in a meaningful way. Take the tax calculation for example. That cannot be decomposed into pieces that are generic, and potentially reusable elsewhere. It's just a list of rules and exceptions that need to be implemented as stated. You can decompose it into "1st part of calculation" and "2nd part of calculation", but that's meaningless (unhelpful). (Similarly for the game example above, the rules only exist in the context of other rules.)
Surprisingly many problems are like that, and that makes them kinda difficult to test.
> Take the tax calculation for example. That cannot be decomposed into pieces that are generic, and potentially reusable elsewhere. It's just a list of rules and exceptions that need to be implemented as stated. You can decompose it into "1st part of calculation" and "2nd part of calculation", but that's meaningless (unhelpful). (Similarly for the game example above, the rules only exist in the context of other rules.)
As someone who does this himself for taxes, you're looking only at the "specific shell" part. The generic core is the thing that does the math - spreadsheet, database, whatever. The tax rules are then imposed on top of that core.
Well you can claim that the core is the programming language, in which we write those tax rules, but that's not a very useful distinction IMHO (for how to write programs in the language).
That's only the case where a usable generic core already exists. A great example where it didn't exist is python's "requests" library: https://requests.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
The example on the homepage is the "specific shell" - simple and easy to use, and by far the most common usage, but if you scroll down the table of contents on the API page (https://requests.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/) you'll see sections titled "Lower-Level Classes" and "Lower-Lower-Level Classes" - that's the generic core, which the upper level is implemented in terms of.
I like this example :) Another good example might be Git's distinction between "porcelain" and "plumbing"; the porcelain is implemented in terms of the plumbing, and gives a nicer* interface in terms of what people generally want to do with Git, but the plumbing is what actually does all the general, low-level stuff.
> Take the tax calculation for example. That cannot be decomposed into pieces that are generic, and potentially reusable elsewhere.
Quite right! However, the tax code does change with some regularity, and we can expect that companies like Intuit should have gotten quite good by now -- even on a pure profit motive -- at making it possible to relatively quickly modify only the parts of their products that require updating to the latest tax code. To put it another way, while it might be the case that the tax code for any given year is not amenable to decomposition, all tax codes within a certain span of years might be specific instances of a more general problem. (I recall a POPL keynote some years back that argued for formalizing tax codes in terms of default logic!) By solving that general problem, you can instantiate your solution on the given year's tax code without needing to recreate the entire program from scratch.
To be clear, I'm the one who brought subproblem decomposition into the mix, and we shouldn't tar the top-level commenter with that brush unnecessarily. Of course some problems will be un-decomposable "leaves". I believe their original point, about a specific business layer sitting on top of a more general core, still applies.
> So a game is a good example where the core can be more specialized than the shell. You can imagine a generic UI library shared by a bunch of games, but a generic game rules engine - that's just a programming language.
As it happens, the "ECS pattern" (Entity, Component, and System) is often considered to be a pretty good way of conceptualizing the rules of a game. An ECS framework solves the general problem (of associating components to entities and executing the systems that act over them), and a game developer adapts an ECS framework to their specific needs. The value in this arrangement is precisely that, as the game evolves and takes shape, only the logic specific to the game needs to be changed. The underlying ECS framework is on the whole just as appropriate for one game as for any other.
(I could also make a broader point about game engines like Unity and Unreal, and how so many games these days take the "general" problem solved by these engines and adapt them to the "specific" problem of their particular game. In general, nobody particularly wants to make engine-level changes for each experiment during the development of a game, even though sometimes a particular concept for a game demands a new engine.)
> Sure, but this discussion is about FCIS, that's the context, and the GP should consider that.
I understood the original commenter as criticizing FCIS (or at least the original post, as "grasping for straws") and suggesting that GCSS is generally more appropriate. In that context, I think it's natural to interpret their use of "core" and "shell" as competing rather than concordant with FCIS.
I agree -- if you're trying to make the words "shell" and "core" mean the same things between FCIS and GCSS, or identify the same parts of a program, then there will be problems. I think FCIS and GCSS are just two different ways of analyzing a program into pieces. Just as the number 8 can be seen through addition as 3 + 8 and through multiplication as 2 * 4, a program can be analyzed in multiple ways. If you view a program through the lens of FCIS, you expect to see a broad region of the program in which side-effects don't occur and a narrow region in which they do. If you view a program through the lens of GCSS, you expect to see broad parts of the program that solve general problems, and narrower regions in which those problems are instantiated in specific. The narrower regions are all "shell"-shaped, but that doesn't mean they are "the" shell. They have in common simply that they wrap a bulk of functionality to interface it to a larger context.
> At the core, things can be more integrated than at the boundary, and so it can have more business-specific rules.
I tend to disagree. Decomposition is a fundamental part of software engineering: we decompose a large problem into smaller ones, solve those, them compose those solutions into a solution to the large problem (c.f. Parnas' "On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules"). It is often easier to solve a more general problem than the one originally given (Polya's principle). Combining the two yields GCSS.
A solution to each individual small problem can be construed as having its own generic core, and the principles used in composing sibling solutions constitute the specific shells that wrap them, allow them to interface, and together implement a solution to a higher-level problem.
Because there are multiple of these "cores", each solving a decomposed part of the top-level problem, it's hard for me to see how "At the core, things can be more integrated than at the boundary".
> The definition question is, if you take an application, where is the business logic, is it in the "core" or not?
I don't mean to be a sophist, but I think I need a more precise meaning of "business logic" before I can answer this question. In the process of solving successively smaller (and more general) problems, we abstract away from the totality of the business problem being solved, and address smaller and less-specific aspects of that problem. It may be that each subproblem's solution is architected as an individual instance of FCIS, as is often argued for microservice architectures; or that each subproblem is purely functional and only the top-level solution is wrapped in an imperative core; or anywhere in between. Needless to say, I think that choice is orthogonal.
As a result, I would say that the business logic itself has been factorized and distributed across the many subproblems and their solutions, and that indeed the "specific shell"s that are responsible for specializing solutions toward the specific case of the business need may necessarily include business logic. For instance, when automating a business process, one often needs to perform a complex step A before a complex step B. While both A and B might be independently solvable, orchestrating them together is still "business logic", because they need to be performed in order according to business needs.
(In all of this, perhaps you can see why I don't think the "core" and "shell" of FCIS should be identified with the "core" and "shell" of GCSS. Words are allowed to have contextual meanings!)