I still disagree. In real world cases tightly integrated designs have often been viable a decade or more before modularized designs came to market.
You seem to be implying (and please correct me if I'm wrong ;-) that loosely coupled systems are necessarily slower to market and/or perform significantly worse than tightly coupled solutions?
If so, I'm not entirely convinced. When I see tightly coupled software being produced it's normally a combination of one or more of:
- Developers not having the necessary knowledge of ways to create software in a loosely coupled manner (e.g. not knowing about techniques like dependency injection.)
- Not having appropriate tools to make the development of loosely coupled software simple (e.g. a language like Perl or Java offers more features that help with loose coupling than a language like C or COBOL.)
- Not having experience of software development practices that encourage loosely coupled software (e.g. using TDD.)
Sure - there are some instances where a tightly coupled system has been deliberately chosen due to some constraint - but they seem rare in my experience. More often they're done first because that's the only way the developers know how to create software.