When I wrote my comment I was excited "I can help people understand a thing that was hard for me 10 years ago."
When I read your comment I feel attacked. I need people to hear that the original intent of the DRY does not mean "no duplicate lines of code" and that such application leads to the problem you're describing, while the new definition I'm attempting to introduce does not.
> As with every programming "principle", the DRY principle should be used judiciously and the benefits/drawbacks of applying it in any particular scenario should be analyzed accordingly.
Of course. I agree 100% and didn't realize this was in question. Therefore I think this is a good point. I would have appreciated a "yes, and" comment instead of a "no, but" argument.
This is a 100% fair criticism and I'm sorry I took the tone I did with my response. After re-reading through your original comment and my response, my response seems unwarranted.
> Of course. I agree 100% and didn't realize this was in question. Therefore I think this is a good point. I would have appreciated a "yes, and" comment instead of a "no, but" argument.
This is perfect advice, and put very succinctly. Sorry again for the combative nature of my first response and I'll try to do better in the future framing any remarks like these as a "yes, and" comment :)
When I read your comment I feel attacked. I need people to hear that the original intent of the DRY does not mean "no duplicate lines of code" and that such application leads to the problem you're describing, while the new definition I'm attempting to introduce does not.
> As with every programming "principle", the DRY principle should be used judiciously and the benefits/drawbacks of applying it in any particular scenario should be analyzed accordingly.
Of course. I agree 100% and didn't realize this was in question. Therefore I think this is a good point. I would have appreciated a "yes, and" comment instead of a "no, but" argument.