3 ms·

My experience is totally different. Sure the popular beginners advice is to never repeat yourself, but in many cases that can actually be a viable operation, es

by atoav 2y ago

My experience is totally different. Sure the popular beginners advice is to never repeat yourself, but in many cases that can actually be a viable operation, especially when you are okay with functions drifting apart or the cases they handle are allowed to differ. And that happens. The beginners problem lies in the reasons why that happens — e.g. very often the reason is that someone didn't really think about their argument and return data types, how functions access needed context data, how to return when functions can error in multiple ways etc, so if you find yourself reimplementing the same thing twice because of that — sure thing, you shouldn't — what you should do is go back and think better about how data is supposed to flow. But if you have a data flow that you are very confident with and you need to do two things that just differ slightly just copy and paste it into two distinct functions, as this is what you want to have in some cases. Dogmatism gets you only so far in programming.

wruza 2y ago
I think that it’s our tooling sucks, not us. Cause we only have functions and duplicated code, but there’s no named-common-block idea, which one could insert, edit and 1) see how it differs from the original immediately next time 2) other devs would see that it’s not just code, but a part of a common block, and follow ideas from it 3) changes to the original block would be merge-compatible downwards (and actually pending) 4) can eject code from this hierarchy in case it completely diverges and cannot be maintained as a part of it anymore Instead we generate this thread over and over again but no one can define “good {structure,design,circumstances}” etc. It’s all at the “feeling” level and doing so or so in the clueless beginning makes it hard to change later.
- skydhash 2y ago
  Smalltalk?
  - wruza 2y ago
    Sadly I can’t just go and develop systems in smalltalk eco, too different boots to wear. So there’s no reason to even go and learn about how it does that or a similar thing, cause I not gonna switch or implement it myself in my editor. I’m sure (and confidently so) that I’d like to see exactly the described in editors/ides and that would make my coding life much easier.
- rileymat2 2y ago
  Without the encapsulation of a function, won’t the code around the common block depend on the details of the block in ways that cause coupling that make the common block hard to change without detailed analysis of all usages. I like what you are saying, i think, but am stuck on this internal coupling.
  - wruza 2y ago
    It will share nuance with non-hygienic macros, yes. The difference here is that (1) unlike macros which hide what’s going on, the code is always expanded and can be patched locally with the visual indication of an edit, and (2) the changes to the origin block aren’t automatically propagated, you simply see +-patch clutter everywhere, which is actionable but not mandatory. If you want to patch the origin without cluttering other locations, just move it away from there and put another copy into where it was, and edit. The key idea is to still have the same copied blocks of code. Code will be there physically repeated at each location. You can erase “block <name> {“ parts from code and nothing will change. But instead of being lost in the trees these blocks get tagged, so you can track their state and analyze and make decisions in a convenient systemic way. It’s an analysis tool, not a footgun. No change propagates automatically, so coupling problem is not a bigger problem that you would have already with duplicated code approach. You can even gradually block-ize existing code. See a common snippet again? Wrap it into “block <myname> {…}” and start devtime-tracking it together with similar snippets. Don’t change anything, just take it into real account.
dllthomas 2y ago
I think a part of the problem is that in addition to being a well regarded principle with a good pedigree, "DRY" is both catchy and (unlike SOLID or similar) seems self explanatory. The natural interpretation, however, doesn't really match what was written in The Pragmatic Programmer, where it doesn't speak of duplicate code but rather duplicate "pieces of information". If "you are okay with functions drifting apart or the cases they handle are allowed to differ" then the two functions really don't represent the same piece of information, and collapsing them may be better or worse but it is no more DRY by that definition. I've tried to counter-meme with the joke that collapsing superficially similar code isn't improving it, but compressing it, and that we should refer to such activity as "Huffman coding". It's also worth noting that the focus on syntax can also miss cases where DRY would recommend a change; if you are saying "there is a button here" in HTML and also in CSS and also in JS, your code isn't DRY even if those three look nothing alike (though whether the steps necessary to collapse those will very much depend on context).
- wruza 2y ago
  The book assumes that you should know better, that’s the problem. You may understand it correctly and do your best, but remain unsure if that “piece of information” is the same with that one or not, cause it’s open for interpretation.
  - dllthomas 2y ago
    Uncertainty as to the line between "one piece of information" and "two pieces of information" may be a problem. I don't think it makes sense to say it's "the problem" when most people don't know that DRY is formulated in those terms in the first place. Personally, I don't think the ambiguity is actually much of a problem; often it's not ambiguous, and when it is it's usually the case that multiple ways of organizing things are reasonably appropriate and other concerns should dominate (they may need to anyway).
    - wruza 2y ago
      I read your second paragraph as vagueness is fine, which sort of makes DRY not a helpful principle but a handwavy problem statement with no clear anything. As in most vague problems, two extreme solutions (join vs dup) are a wrong way to think about it. I have some ideas on how to turn this into a spectrum in a nearby comment. I think it is important because DRY-flavored problem is basically the thing you meet in the code most. At least that is my experience, as a guy who hates typing out and rediscovering knowledge from slightly different code blocks or tangled multi-path procedures and refactoring these — either in hope that nothing breaks in multiple places, or that you won’t forget to update that one semi-copy. I’m programming for a very long time and seemingly no one ever even tried to address this in any sensible way.

by atoav 2y ago

wruza 2y ago

I think that it’s our tooling sucks, not us. Cause we only have functions and duplicated code, but there’s no named-common-block idea, which one could insert, edit and 1) see how it differs from the original immediately next time 2) other devs would see that it’s not just code, but a part of a common block, and follow ideas from it 3) changes to the original block would be merge-compatible downwards (and actually pending) 4) can eject code from this hierarchy in case it completely diverges and cannot be maintained as a part of it anymore Instead we generate this thread over and over again but no one can define “good {structure,design,circumstances}” etc. It’s all at the “feeling” level and doing so or so in the clueless beginning makes it hard to change later.

skydhash 2y ago
Smalltalk?
- wruza 2y ago
  Sadly I can’t just go and develop systems in smalltalk eco, too different boots to wear. So there’s no reason to even go and learn about how it does that or a similar thing, cause I not gonna switch or implement it myself in my editor. I’m sure (and confidently so) that I’d like to see exactly the described in editors/ides and that would make my coding life much easier.
rileymat2 2y ago
Without the encapsulation of a function, won’t the code around the common block depend on the details of the block in ways that cause coupling that make the common block hard to change without detailed analysis of all usages. I like what you are saying, i think, but am stuck on this internal coupling.
- wruza 2y ago
  It will share nuance with non-hygienic macros, yes. The difference here is that (1) unlike macros which hide what’s going on, the code is always expanded and can be patched locally with the visual indication of an edit, and (2) the changes to the origin block aren’t automatically propagated, you simply see +-patch clutter everywhere, which is actionable but not mandatory. If you want to patch the origin without cluttering other locations, just move it away from there and put another copy into where it was, and edit. The key idea is to still have the same copied blocks of code. Code will be there physically repeated at each location. You can erase “block <name> {“ parts from code and nothing will change. But instead of being lost in the trees these blocks get tagged, so you can track their state and analyze and make decisions in a convenient systemic way. It’s an analysis tool, not a footgun. No change propagates automatically, so coupling problem is not a bigger problem that you would have already with duplicated code approach. You can even gradually block-ize existing code. See a common snippet again? Wrap it into “block <myname> {…}” and start devtime-tracking it together with similar snippets. Don’t change anything, just take it into real account.

dllthomas 2y ago

I think a part of the problem is that in addition to being a well regarded principle with a good pedigree, "DRY" is both catchy and (unlike SOLID or similar) seems self explanatory. The natural interpretation, however, doesn't really match what was written in The Pragmatic Programmer, where it doesn't speak of duplicate code but rather duplicate "pieces of information". If "you are okay with functions drifting apart or the cases they handle are allowed to differ" then the two functions really don't represent the same piece of information, and collapsing them may be better or worse but it is no more DRY by that definition. I've tried to counter-meme with the joke that collapsing superficially similar code isn't improving it, but compressing it, and that we should refer to such activity as "Huffman coding". It's also worth noting that the focus on syntax can also miss cases where DRY would recommend a change; if you are saying "there is a button here" in HTML and also in CSS and also in JS, your code isn't DRY even if those three look nothing alike (though whether the steps necessary to collapse those will very much depend on context).

wruza 2y ago
The book assumes that you should know better, that’s the problem. You may understand it correctly and do your best, but remain unsure if that “piece of information” is the same with that one or not, cause it’s open for interpretation.
- dllthomas 2y ago
  Uncertainty as to the line between "one piece of information" and "two pieces of information" may be a problem. I don't think it makes sense to say it's "the problem" when most people don't know that DRY is formulated in those terms in the first place. Personally, I don't think the ambiguity is actually much of a problem; often it's not ambiguous, and when it is it's usually the case that multiple ways of organizing things are reasonably appropriate and other concerns should dominate (they may need to anyway).
  - wruza 2y ago
    I read your second paragraph as vagueness is fine, which sort of makes DRY not a helpful principle but a handwavy problem statement with no clear anything. As in most vague problems, two extreme solutions (join vs dup) are a wrong way to think about it. I have some ideas on how to turn this into a spectrum in a nearby comment. I think it is important because DRY-flavored problem is basically the thing you meet in the code most. At least that is my experience, as a guy who hates typing out and rediscovering knowledge from slightly different code blocks or tangled multi-path procedures and refactoring these — either in hope that nothing breaks in multiple places, or that you won’t forget to update that one semi-copy. I’m programming for a very long time and seemingly no one ever even tried to address this in any sensible way.