<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:s='http://snipsnap.org/rdf/snip-schema#'
    xmlns:rdf='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#'
    xml:base='http://thinkberg.com/rdf'>
    <s:Snip rdf:about='http://thinkberg.com/rdf#start/2006-08-11/1'
         s:name='start/2006-08-11/1'
         s:cUser='arte'
         s:oUser=''
         s:mUser='arte'>
        <s:content>1 Software Dissection ... {anchor:Software Dissection ...}&#xA;__Developers beware of lazyness.__&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;If software was a living body I would be wading in blood. I opened up [SnipSnap] and started to dissect it, extracting independent components. Every time I find something that looks like a vital organ I cut it out. Luckily until now everything seems to work, thanks to the refactoring abilities of {link:IntelliJ IDEA|http://www.intellij.com}.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Now, generally SnipSnap is quite componentized but still there are some cyclic dependencies. Most of them are lazy additions which is a danger every development faces. Featurism is the driving force here.&#xD;&#xA;&#xD;&#xA;Well, take the advice and make clearly separated components right from the beginning and keep it that way. </s:content>
        <s:mTime>2006-08-11 20:09:38.724</s:mTime>
        <s:cTime>2006-08-11 20:09:38.724</s:cTime>
        <s:comments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
        <s:snipLinks>
            <rdf:Bag>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource='#arte'/>
            </rdf:Bag>
        </s:snipLinks>
        <s:attachments
             rdf:type='http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Bag'/>
    </s:Snip>
</rdf:RDF>