> commonness (is that not "call sites"?) I realize it's been 8 days, but I've mulled over the distinction and figured out the point I'm trying to make - and it

> commonness (is that not "call sites"?) I realize it's been 8 days, but I've mulled over the distinction and figured out the point I'm trying to make - and it's a matter of concept reuse vs code reuse. I might write a once-off, project specific, completely nonreusable function, with exactly one call site, but it still might be named after and based off of reusable concepts. A concrete example that comes to mind: I often write a "main" function, even in scripting languages that don't require it. This lets me place the core logic at the start of the script for ease-of-reading/browsing without having all it's dependency functions defined yet. I then invoke this main function exactly once, at the bottom of the script. This is clearly not code reuse nor code deduplication - but it is concept reuse, the concept being "the main entry point of an executable process." I might write a mathematical function like "abs" or "distance" as a quick local lambda function without intending to reuse it as well. I might later refactor to reuse/deduplicate that code by moving it into a common shared library of some sort. I might then later undo that refactoring to make a script nice and self-contained / standalone / decoupled / to shield it from upstream version churn / to improve build times / ??? > multiplication If you'd only used multiplication exactly once, it wouldn't have had much staying power as a useful abstraction. That it's a repeating, common, reusable pattern that can be useful in your day to day life is part of what makes it a useful abstraction worth internalizing.