3 ms·

I abstract, i.e, put code into its own function, even when N=1, to make surrounding code more readable and simpler. At N=2, I definitely abstract. Abstracting d

I abstract, i.e, put code into its own function, even when N=1, to make surrounding code more readable and simpler. At N=2, I definitely abstract. Abstracting doesn't mean building class hierarchies, when they are not needed. I abstract at the required level. Premature abstraction, in my book, means abstracting in expectation of future needs. It is different than abstracting small and often. My abstractions are not premature, because they address existing needs. I view copy-pasted code as cancer of a codebase. It is very difficult to tell if two similar looking code function the same way, therefore making it practically impossible to DRY away, whereas calling the same function leaves no room for guess. Copy-pasted code reduces readability, understandability, makes code longer. It never happens under my supervision.

kiitos 3y ago
Given fn a foo a foo b foo c bar d bar e baz f baz g baz h and fn b foo bar baz fn foo a b c fn bar d e fn baz f g h which of a or b is more readable and simpler? (Spoiler: it's almost always a.) DRY isn't about repetition of text in a source file, it's about repetition of authority in your domain model. You evaluate it at an architectual level, not in PR diffs or whatever.
- laserlight 3y ago
  Of course fn a is simpler and more readable, simply because it's not 200-lines long and there are no indentations and there are no states to keep track of, etc. This example is not at all like a real code and is just a straw man of my argument. DRY at any architectural level corresponds naturally to repetition of text in source files.
  - kiitos 3y ago
    > DRY at any architectural level corresponds naturally to repetition of text in source files. The "repeat" in "don't repeat yourself" refers to semantics (data and sources of truth) and not syntax (text in source files). This is a common misunderstanding, which is one of the things that tends to separate junior and senior engineers.
    - laserlight 3y ago
      Agreed.

kiitos 3y ago

Given fn a foo a foo b foo c bar d bar e baz f baz g baz h and fn b foo bar baz fn foo a b c fn bar d e fn baz f g h which of a or b is more readable and simpler? (Spoiler: it's almost always a.) DRY isn't about repetition of text in a source file, it's about repetition of authority in your domain model. You evaluate it at an architectual level, not in PR diffs or whatever.

laserlight 3y ago
Of course fn a is simpler and more readable, simply because it's not 200-lines long and there are no indentations and there are no states to keep track of, etc. This example is not at all like a real code and is just a straw man of my argument. DRY at any architectural level corresponds naturally to repetition of text in source files.
- kiitos 3y ago
  > DRY at any architectural level corresponds naturally to repetition of text in source files. The "repeat" in "don't repeat yourself" refers to semantics (data and sources of truth) and not syntax (text in source files). This is a common misunderstanding, which is one of the things that tends to separate junior and senior engineers.
  - laserlight 3y ago
    Agreed.