5 ms·

I learned this from the smartest dev manager I've ever had in the second or third week at the job, it really tore down a lot of the notions I'd formed as a self

by weego 6y ago

I learned this from the smartest dev manager I've ever had in the second or third week at the job, it really tore down a lot of the notions I'd formed as a self taught developer. We were looking at a pull I'd created and he asked 'are these things really the same or is it just a coincidence because the features aren't mature enough yet?'. And yes I'd conflated two things with entirely different intents by over-abstracting.

landryraccoon 6y ago
Wow, you just blew my mind. "Don't Repeat Yourself" could just be premature optimization and overfitting on a tiny data set.
- gsej 6y ago
  Absolutely. This has been discussed here quite a bit (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=120614530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=120614530). In real life it's often visible when you have methods that take one or more flags to tell them how to behave. Fixing involves duplicating the method - one copy for calls where the flag is true, one for where it is false. Then simplifying, then repeating. The code that falls out at the end is often dramatically simpler than what was there before. It makes me wonder about some of these programming aphorisms - they only seem to work if you are already experienced enough to know to take them with a pinch of salt.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  DRY is really valuable for noobs. Like, defining magic numbers twice in adjacent functions is really common behavior for beginners. Likewise, writing the same exact logic several times in different parts of the code without encapsulating into a function. Stuff that would be obvious for even junior devs. But I do think it falls apart when applied at a more macro level.
k_sze 6y ago
The book "Pragmatic Programmer" talks about this in chapter 2, topic 9. The kind of duplication you want to avoid is knowledge duplication. If two pieces of code literally do the same thing but for different reasons/purposes, it may not be a good idea to deduplicate them.
- lkschubert8 6y ago
  Yeah I think DRY has been bastardized to mean dont repeat code when it actually means encode business logic in one place.
  - mcv 6y ago
    I mind duplicated code a lot less than duplicated data. If two things have to match, but they're using two different configurations, then there's going to be a mismatch some day. I'd rather create the second config out of the first one. If front- and backend need to know something, have the front-end get its config from the backend, instead of hard-coding it in two places.
- mcv 6y ago
  I've got the bunch of services that all do the same thing on a different data model. Originally they were all different and completely custom. Over time, I've managed to get nearly all of the code practically identical across 8 services. The same code is duplicated 8 times, but I prefer that over when they were all different, because then they were all doing basically the same thing in 8 different ways. I know that eventually I can move all the identical code out of there to its own service, and replace the 8 services with just 8 simple configuration lists, and that's definitely where we're going at some point in the future, but for now, the 8 times duplication is actually fine. People know these services and what they do, and I know they're conceptually all instances of the same thing, it's just not quite represented that way in the code yet. We'll get there. It's possible a few still have some exceptions, so that needs to be figured out first, but due to the way the code is put together, there's no rush; people are only changing the parts they're meant to change anyway.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  Very early versions of the my compiler's code generator were set up to minimize code size, for the simple reason that 640K wasn't enough. This meant merging disparate sequences of code, often with goto's. The result made it hard to understand the code, and hard to graft in new functionality. So over time I refactored it to duplicate the code, but each string of code is a lot easier to understand.

by weego 6y ago

landryraccoon 6y ago

Wow, you just blew my mind. "Don't Repeat Yourself" could just be premature optimization and overfitting on a tiny data set.

gsej 6y ago
Absolutely. This has been discussed here quite a bit (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=120614530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=120614530). In real life it's often visible when you have methods that take one or more flags to tell them how to behave. Fixing involves duplicating the method - one copy for calls where the flag is true, one for where it is false. Then simplifying, then repeating. The code that falls out at the end is often dramatically simpler than what was there before. It makes me wonder about some of these programming aphorisms - they only seem to work if you are already experienced enough to know to take them with a pinch of salt.
thehappypm 6y ago
DRY is really valuable for noobs. Like, defining magic numbers twice in adjacent functions is really common behavior for beginners. Likewise, writing the same exact logic several times in different parts of the code without encapsulating into a function. Stuff that would be obvious for even junior devs. But I do think it falls apart when applied at a more macro level.

k_sze 6y ago

The book "Pragmatic Programmer" talks about this in chapter 2, topic 9. The kind of duplication you want to avoid is knowledge duplication. If two pieces of code literally do the same thing but for different reasons/purposes, it may not be a good idea to deduplicate them.

lkschubert8 6y ago
Yeah I think DRY has been bastardized to mean dont repeat code when it actually means encode business logic in one place.
- mcv 6y ago
  I mind duplicated code a lot less than duplicated data. If two things have to match, but they're using two different configurations, then there's going to be a mismatch some day. I'd rather create the second config out of the first one. If front- and backend need to know something, have the front-end get its config from the backend, instead of hard-coding it in two places.
mcv 6y ago
I've got the bunch of services that all do the same thing on a different data model. Originally they were all different and completely custom. Over time, I've managed to get nearly all of the code practically identical across 8 services. The same code is duplicated 8 times, but I prefer that over when they were all different, because then they were all doing basically the same thing in 8 different ways. I know that eventually I can move all the identical code out of there to its own service, and replace the 8 services with just 8 simple configuration lists, and that's definitely where we're going at some point in the future, but for now, the 8 times duplication is actually fine. People know these services and what they do, and I know they're conceptually all instances of the same thing, it's just not quite represented that way in the code yet. We'll get there. It's possible a few still have some exceptions, so that needs to be figured out first, but due to the way the code is put together, there's no rush; people are only changing the parts they're meant to change anyway.
WalterBright 6y ago
Very early versions of the my compiler's code generator were set up to minimize code size, for the simple reason that 640K wasn't enough. This meant merging disparate sequences of code, often with goto's. The result made it hard to understand the code, and hard to graft in new functionality. So over time I refactored it to duplicate the code, but each string of code is a lot easier to understand.