3 ms·
The biggest problem is that there is no concept of DRY in law. No single source of laws about $X. It's layers upon layers of conflicting code and it becomes a m
by gtirloni 11y ago
The biggest problem is that there is no concept of DRY in law. No single source of laws about $X. It's layers upon layers of conflicting code and it becomes a maze.
- JoachimS 11y agoSounds like quite a few major sw projects though. ;-)
- brlewis 11y agoI think it's misleading to say there's no concept of Don't Repeat Yourself. Precedent is the concept that's supposed to do that. Software has layers of conflicting code too, but you wouldn't say software engineering doesn't have the concept.
- nitrogen 11y agoLegal precedent is the last thing we would want to mirror in software... Imagine if every resolved bug from every software project, every hacky workaround, was implicitly included in your code, rather than fixing bugs upstream at the source.
- M2Ys4U 11y agoI don't disagree with you, but the analogy of fixing the bug upstream is a legislative amendment.
- carapace 11y ago(BTW, "DRY" is an inadequate reprise of refactoring. That's always bothered me. "Don't repeat yourself" is one big repeat of an earlier and more clearly and rigorously defined idea.)
- nitrogen 11y ago"DRY" is phrased in terms that are useful to software writers (in DHH's terms), not just software engineers.
- carapace 11y agoI think everyone should be able to program in the same way that everyone should be literate, and should have a grasp of basic mathematics too for that measure. But the people who write software professionally must be held to a higher standard, just as we expect so much more from professional writers (but we expect everybody to be able to read street signs and write shopping lists.) I don't wish to be provocative but anyone who can't understand factoring shouldn't be writing software. DRY is an oxymoron.