4 ms·
I'm not seeing where the parent poster suggested taking DRY to such extremes. The fact that a feature can be abused doesn't mean that it's a worthless feature.
by lomnakkus 11y ago
I'm not seeing where the parent poster suggested taking DRY to such extremes.
The fact that a feature can be abused doesn't mean that it's a worthless feature. If that were the case there'd be no progress in programming languages because basically every feature can be abused. What matters is the balance between how easy it is to abuse (accidentally or not) vs. how useful it is when not abused (such as added expressivity/safety/DRYness/etc.).
- grey-area 11y agoGo does not eschew dry, it just draws the line a little further toward repitition than other languages.
- XorNot 11y agoTo it's credit, most of the times I feel like I'm repeating myself in Go I usually later find I'm needing to specialize anyway. Go tends to help you avoid premature optimizations which you'll "totally fix later" - i.e. handle your errors now, not then.