When writing functions often I end up deciding fairly quickly if the function I am writing is intended to be reusable or not. If it is reusable I'll write it as

When writing functions often I end up deciding fairly quickly if the function I am writing is intended to be reusable or not. If it is reusable I'll write it as a utility function, helper, lib, ... whatever the project's convention and language paradigm might be. Usually similar reusable functions already exist within the project. A significant portion of functions fall in another category; functions that actually get some real work done. They are specific and not intended for reuse at all. Applying the "never edit a method, always rewrite it"-rule to those helper/utility functions would just be painful. The public API you designed is designed with a certain purpose and reuse intent. Improving it slightly to fix an issue and forcing yourself to entirely rewrite it would just break things. Most likely you'll end up writing lots of small copies of the original method (how painful this exactly might be depends on the language you're using). Applying that rewrite-rule to specific functions/methods makes slightly more sense. Here the logic is more tightly bound by business rules/logic, which if they change will quite often warrent a rethink. Particularly because business likes to just slap a feature on top of everything else; which means for us finding ways to keep everything sane in the codebase requires continuous refactoring. Rewriting a function here does not intend to make the function more reusable, it attempts to make the code more clear. Sometimes reusable patterns emerge, but often they don't. Obviously the above is a simplification of things. Often programmers are obsessed with abstractions and design patterns (read too much GoF, Martin Fowler & Uncle Bob); or don't bother with anything at all (script kiddies, prototype developers, or any code written during a PhD...). The truth lies somewhere in the middle.