4 ms·

Partially agree. I think SPOT (I'd always heard it called single source of truth) is a more universally applicable paradigm than DRY. Having said that, the cos

Partially agree. I think SPOT (I'd always heard it called single source of truth) is a more universally applicable paradigm than DRY. Having said that, the cost of creating dependency chains is often underestimated. Overly dogmatic adherence to SPOT/SST can lead you to make the wrong tradeoff on coupling two unrelated areas of your codebase to unify some trivial truth. I'd also say there is a lot of nuance about what "truth" is (i.e. is a pizza crust/sauce/cheese an essential truth that should have a single source). Some DRY definitions I read actually tie in SST but I think many devs don't bring that nuance to it.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I think SPOT (I'd always heard it called single source of truth) is a more universally applicable paradigm than DRY. “Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system” is the verbatim definition of DRY from when the DRY principle was first articulated.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  And "knowledge" is a far more applicable word than "truth." Truth implies facts, knowledge implies understanding the meaning and associated course of actions. This is the second time in as many days that I've read something purporting to go beyond some original. The one yesterday was "we need more than the four types of documentation." All the examples fit into the four types as originally defined. In HR training, there was even an entire segment on the "Platinum rule" because the Golden rule isn't good enough. Yet anyone who works to understand the Golden rule to any depth knows that it encompasses every "enhancement" the Platinum rule intends without any of the side effects. What kind of failure is occurring such that definitions don't function any more, I wonder?
  - layer8 4y ago
    Maybe, but SPOT is a more memorable acronym than SPOK (or whatever). It allows you to talk about the “SPOTs” where stuff is defined. One could also use “SPOTify X” to mean “reducing X to a SPOT”. :)
    - slowmovintarget 4y ago
      How about "reduce coupling" in that function, "increase cohesion" in this other function. The DRY principle is intending to get you thinking of coupling and cohesion, which, when gotten backward dramatically increase complexity. The mechanism to "SPOT that code out, bro!" can be applying varying techniques for reducing coupling, and tightening cohesion. A proper review on a merge request should be making more specific comments about how, not a hand-wave to say "DRY that sucker up." One final comment: DRY is three characters, therefore obviously more efficient :p
- gcassie 4y ago
  Yeah there are a lot of definitions out there that are along these lines and they do hollow out my argument. But why call it "Don't Repeat Yourself" if it actually means something somewhat more subtle than that. I firmly believe many junior developers don't grasp the nuance and based on the comments I'm not the only one who thinks this. So if DRY is widely understood by developers to mean literally "don't repeat yourself" and nothing more, does it really matter how the formal definition phrases it? In any event, if SPOT / SST and DRY do mean the exact same thing, I like SPOT / SST better because the names encode the essential concepts of the principle.
  - galaxyLogic 4y ago
    I think the rule should be "Try not to repeat yourself" Rules are like alarms they draw our attention to some peculiar condition which gives us pause to think about if it's kosher and if not why not.
    - cogman10 4y ago
      The art of programming is finding the fit and exceptions to the rules. It's just, frankly, a lot easier to be dogmatic. Someone says "never do this" or "always do that" and you can apply those rules with abandon (often leaving a maintenance nightmare in your wake). There are no rules to programming.
      - layer8 4y ago
        I find it useful to think of it as forces pulling on the design, similar to physical forces acting on an object. There are forces that try to keep individual truths/knowledge and responsibilities in a singular place, there are forces that try to minimize abstractions, coupling, dependencies, and indirections, there are forces that try to maximize coherence and separation of concerns, and so on. It’s an essential part of the job of a software engineer to balance those adequately in the design of the software.
        galaxyLogic 4y ago
verdverm 4y ago
I really like your SPOT better than SSoT, the acronym is so much more on point, really hits the "spot"

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I think SPOT (I'd always heard it called single source of truth) is a more universally applicable paradigm than DRY. “Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system” is the verbatim definition of DRY from when the DRY principle was first articulated.

slowmovintarget 4y ago
And "knowledge" is a far more applicable word than "truth." Truth implies facts, knowledge implies understanding the meaning and associated course of actions. This is the second time in as many days that I've read something purporting to go beyond some original. The one yesterday was "we need more than the four types of documentation." All the examples fit into the four types as originally defined. In HR training, there was even an entire segment on the "Platinum rule" because the Golden rule isn't good enough. Yet anyone who works to understand the Golden rule to any depth knows that it encompasses every "enhancement" the Platinum rule intends without any of the side effects. What kind of failure is occurring such that definitions don't function any more, I wonder?
- layer8 4y ago
  Maybe, but SPOT is a more memorable acronym than SPOK (or whatever). It allows you to talk about the “SPOTs” where stuff is defined. One could also use “SPOTify X” to mean “reducing X to a SPOT”. :)
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    How about "reduce coupling" in that function, "increase cohesion" in this other function. The DRY principle is intending to get you thinking of coupling and cohesion, which, when gotten backward dramatically increase complexity. The mechanism to "SPOT that code out, bro!" can be applying varying techniques for reducing coupling, and tightening cohesion. A proper review on a merge request should be making more specific comments about how, not a hand-wave to say "DRY that sucker up." One final comment: DRY is three characters, therefore obviously more efficient :p
gcassie 4y ago
Yeah there are a lot of definitions out there that are along these lines and they do hollow out my argument. But why call it "Don't Repeat Yourself" if it actually means something somewhat more subtle than that. I firmly believe many junior developers don't grasp the nuance and based on the comments I'm not the only one who thinks this. So if DRY is widely understood by developers to mean literally "don't repeat yourself" and nothing more, does it really matter how the formal definition phrases it? In any event, if SPOT / SST and DRY do mean the exact same thing, I like SPOT / SST better because the names encode the essential concepts of the principle.
- galaxyLogic 4y ago
  I think the rule should be "Try not to repeat yourself" Rules are like alarms they draw our attention to some peculiar condition which gives us pause to think about if it's kosher and if not why not.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    The art of programming is finding the fit and exceptions to the rules. It's just, frankly, a lot easier to be dogmatic. Someone says "never do this" or "always do that" and you can apply those rules with abandon (often leaving a maintenance nightmare in your wake). There are no rules to programming.
    - layer8 4y ago
      I find it useful to think of it as forces pulling on the design, similar to physical forces acting on an object. There are forces that try to keep individual truths/knowledge and responsibilities in a singular place, there are forces that try to minimize abstractions, coupling, dependencies, and indirections, there are forces that try to maximize coherence and separation of concerns, and so on. It’s an essential part of the job of a software engineer to balance those adequately in the design of the software.
      - galaxyLogic 4y ago

verdverm 4y ago

I really like your SPOT better than SSoT, the acronym is so much more on point, really hits the "spot"