# Revisiting the Impact of Pursuing Modularity for Code Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11406 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.11406/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 4 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.14196/) (2024)
- [Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09938/) (2021)
- [LLM-Assisted Code Cleaning For Training Accurate Code Generators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.14904/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Modular programming, which aims to construct the final program by integrating smaller, independent building blocks, has been regarded as a desirable practice in software development. However, with the rise of recent code generation agents built upon large language models (LLMs), a question emerges: is this traditional practice equally effective for these new tools? In this work, we assess the impact of modularity in code generation by introducing a novel metric for its quantitative measurement. Surprisingly, unlike conventional wisdom on the topic, we find that modularity is not a core factor for improving the performance of code generation models. We also explore potential explanations for why LLMs do not exhibit a preference for modular code compared to non-modular code.