2 ms·

I'll add that "code reuse" was pushed as an idea too heavily (at my university at least). I think that leads to a fair bit of the over engineering and unnecessa

by collyw 3y ago

I'll add that "code reuse" was pushed as an idea too heavily (at my university at least). I think that leads to a fair bit of the over engineering and unnecessary complexity. I saw a comment later saying not to aim for "code reuse", but rather to "avoid code duplication" which made more sense. I also agree that a lot of best practices are great if you are a massive company with unlimited resources, but they are just overkill and add complexity for smaller projects and teams.

jampekka 3y ago
Code reuse was indeed the hype, especially of OOP and inheritance. In practice it just made real code reuse a lot worse. The class hierarchies become so tightly coupled that any "reuse" requires a lot more boilerplate than the actual code to use. I know that the idea is not just not writing more code, but have a "single point of truth". But the boilerplate leads to a situation where it's very inpractical and leads to a tightly coupled mess that's really hard to change. What actually increased code reuse was duck typing (i.e. implicit interfaces), made popular by Python. But that's becoming verboten nowadays. And I don't think current structural typing systems are gonna reach the same level of reuse.