3 ms·
I kind of hate stuff like this. Why three? Why not four? Is it three because the "rule of three" sounds quotable? It's similar to KISS. Yes I get why simplicit
by crimsonalucard 7y ago
I kind of hate stuff like this. Why three? Why not four? Is it three because the "rule of three" sounds quotable?
It's similar to KISS. Yes I get why simplicity is great but it doesn't mean it's universally great. Is this acronym telling me to follow some random principle because the acronym forms a word? Many Complex systems exist in the world as an antithesis to KISS, so this principle isn't universal at all.
Why not stop duplication in ALL cases? What is the statistical evidence or logical proof that justifies "three?"
- boardwaalk 7y agoNo kidding. It makes big assumptions about how easy and clean the deduplication is to do. Time constraints. How likely the code will be to change, converge or diverge in the future or be junked entirely, etc, etc. I’m not sure why you can’t just say, “Deduplication is often good, but use your own judgement.” I guess it’s not as catchy?
- samatman 7y agoThe premise is that the second time you do the same thing, it's often unclear if it's really the same thing, or if it's just the same thing at the moment. I stick with the Rule of Three as a rule of thumb, and it seems that the repeated logic diverges about as often as it converges. Once you start thinking about a third implementation, it's time to put the logic in one place.