DEV Community

Rafal Stozek
Rafal Stozek

Posted on • Updated on


Please do repeat yourself (DRY is dead)

First of all, let me apologize for the clickbait-y title, but we need to talk about Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY) principle.

Story 1

Few years ago we were asked to help with further development of an existing platform in the blockchain industry. It was a product directed to traders and helped them automate tax fillings. And it was the biggest copy&paste-based project I have seen in my life.

It was written in PHP. If you know PHP then you know that each .php file acts as an entry point to your code - and from there you usually import (include) utilities, libraries which are common to your project. That is if you don’t use a framework. This one didn’t.

This project was created from the ground up by its founder who learned programming while creating and maintaining this product.

They didn’t have much programming knowledge beforehand and didn’t know all of these good practices and fancy rules that we have. So each .php file was a copy of a previous one with modifications needed for given route/view. Tons of repeated code.

And here’s what’s really important: at this point the product already made millions of dollars.

Let that sink in. No amount of copied code, repetition and what we would call “bad quality code” stopped the product from being successful.

What’s more is that we were able to pretty quickly identify repeated code and introduce the right abstractions because we already knew different use cases from the duplicated code.

But please be aware that I'm not advocating this kind of development. It's an EXTREME example showing that you don't need to be a perfectionist.

Story 2

I’ve known developers who lived to not repeat themselves. I think that at some point they went from “in general it’s better not to have too much repetition” to “if you repeat any code then you will burn in hell”. This is one of these stories.

We were working in a company which had multiple related products. And something that one of the developers did blew my mind. They were working on a new application and decided that they could use a two-line function from the previous project (3 line if you count the function’s definition).

The choice here was simple - just copy these 3 lines of code into the new project. But as a lot of developers think - including this one - “repetition is root of all software evil”. So they spend two days setting up a common library (including deployment process etc) just so they won’t duplicate 3 lines of code.

Now ask yourself how does that benefit the project and how it gets us closer to delivering on our objectives.

The source of all evil

By simply googling “Don’t repeat yourself” I learned that:

  • Repetition is the root of all software evil
  • Duplication is waste
  • If you do it then you don’t understand how to apply abstractions
  • It decreases quality of code
  • It should all be eliminated

It does sound like bad idea, right? But at this point it sounds like we vilify it. It sounds like if you do it then you are a bad developer! Like there isn’t any scenario where you should do it. But ya’ll use StackOverflow, don’t you?

Did you at any time ask yourself a simple question - is it really THAT bad that I copy and paste a little bit of code? Does it have any benefits?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes

Here’s the thing - every rule in software development makes sense at most 80% of the time. Each was coined in some specific context - for which it made sense. But that context got lost in translation and some people began to follow the rule religiously instead of treating it as a rule of thumb.

This is our fault. We make those principles sound so absolute. Don’t repeat yourself means don’t repeat yourself. Then it’s passed from one person to another, copied over blogs, books over and over until it becomes the truth and all context and all the nuance is lost.

So here’s an alternative that I think some of you should try:

Try not to repeat yourself too much. But sometimes you can. Because sometimes it may make sense.

It’s not as catchy phrase though.

Please repeat yourself

This rant is already getting too lengthy for my taste, so let’s get to the point. There are numerous cases where repeating yourself is not only not an anti-pattern but it’s actually a tool.

I love repeating myself. Especially when I’m writing tests. I copy tests all over the place and change what’s needed for the given test. This results in a lot of duplication. When I’m done I simply go through these tests and see what’s the best way to reduce (not completely eliminate) repetition and what can be extracted into separate abstractions.

I could spend a lot of time upfront to figure out how do I want to set up the tests, what helpers do I need, then redoing everything because it turns out that 2 of 25 tests need a little bit different setup. But why would I do this if I can just see where the code takes me? Why not see what’s actually needed instead of doing all this guesswork?

This is not just for tests, but tests are where this is most obvious and I would encourage you to start there.

The overuse of DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) is an anti-pattern in itself. Overzealous duplication removal leads to bad abstractions because developer is creating imaginary abstractions instead of uncovering real ones.

Repeating yourself is basically giving yourself the time and space to come up with the right abstractions instead of engaging in guesswork and clairvoyance. We don’t know what the future code will be. We don’t understand all the use cases at first or ways in which our code will be used. If we introduce abstractions too soon then in best case we end up rewriting everything.

Repeating yourself is a great tool to uncover abstractions.

What other people say

As you may guessed I’m not the first person to notice this. There are two great articles about this topic:

You should definitely read them as they extend this article nicely and will give you more understanding on when to use duplication. Here’s a few excerpts:

“duplication is far cheaper than the wrong abstraction”

”prefer duplication over the wrong abstraction”

— Sandi Metz, “The Wrong Abstraction”

“Avoid Hasty Abstractions”

”Optimize for change first”

the big takeaway about AHA Programming is that you shouldn't be dogmatic about when you start writing abstractions but instead write the abstraction when it feels right and don't be afraid to duplicate code until you get there.”

— Kent C. Dodds, “AHA Programming”


I want to be clear that I’m not inviting you to make a mess. I am pointing out that some level of temporary duplication is healthy. First story is supposed to show you that despite what you may think - the success of a product does not depend on that but instead it depends on business development.

So copy code and modify it when necessary to give yourself space so you can uncover real abstractions instead of imaginary ones. Of course - that’s not the only method to uncover better abstractions. Talking to stakeholders and understanding business better is another way that we will discuss in the future. But it’s not a situation where you need to pick one over the other but rather complementary methods.

There is a lot of rules of thumb in software development - or “good practices”. Usually they work when you understand context and apply them sensibly. Sadly there is a lot of dogma in software industry, it’s driven by hype and emotions and rarely by pragmatism. So remember that these “good practices” are not “all or nothing” but more of a “try to do this more than the other thing and you’ll be good”.

Top comments (68)

jfbrennan profile image
Jordan Brennan

So tired of the over-abstracting over-engineering over-thinking.

Write WET code (Write Everything Twice), then DRY it out as duplicate loc shows strong signs of needing an abstraction. Live a little devs, stop fussing over perfection until perfection is worth it.

webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion and experience, this line of thinking, practical as it may sound, will lead you to mediocrity. I stand in the other side. I studied Chemical Engineering, but I am a senior software developer who has been nominted twice to Microsoft MVP in C#. Why? Because I do not stand mediocrity. I am the developer I am because I forbid myself from copying/pasting.

Your kind of talk leads to developers I have personally recommended to be fired. No hate, just the harsh truth.

ralphcone profile image
Rafal Stozek

Well, if throwing titles around and fallacy of authority is your argument then there isn't anything left to discuss I guess.

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

It is not a fallacy. It is a story of success. Bring me a copy/paster that has been nominated. Please. I'll wait.

Thread Thread
ralphcone profile image
Rafal Stozek

Just because you were nominated to something doesn't mean you are always right or even right in this discussion. Also I don't understand how would I know other nominated people and what their coding style is. The point is - it's not an argument.

I am sure that you are a good engineer but at the same time I can see that you are set in your ways. It's not my place to change your mind I guess, it's up to you if you read it and try to see the world from different perspective or not. Nonetheless I wish you good luck :)

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

I do not intend to "pull rank" in order to be right. I merely explain with an example the potential great benefits of renouncing to the terrible, terrible practice of copying/pasting.

My point here is that no copy/paster will ever stand out? Why? Because it is not their code. That simple. If you want to cruise through your career being barely average, by all means, copy and paste. That's what I'm saying. I'm not pulling ranks.

Thread Thread
tripol profile image

Please you need to update your understanding of a developer 'standing-out'.

If you think the only way a developer can 'stand-out' is by being nominated as a Microsoft MVP n-number of times, then you need to take a sabbatical.

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

By no means did I ever try to imply such a thing. Your conclusion cannot possibly be following a logical path. As stated, it is an example of what you can achieve if you set yourself into a disciplined path.

jfbrennan profile image
Jordan Brennan

Sounds good. I'll ship and you can spend your time fussing over whether or not your code could be even more DRY. Maybe you'll even get nominated DRYest Coder Ever?

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Sarcasm. The tool of the weak. No worries. I'll let you know if I'm nominated. Cheers!

mavrik83 profile image

I mean… Donald Trump was nominated (and won, once) for President of the US. I think we can agree that a mere nomination, or even a win, doesn’t automatically imply qualification.

Your need to state and inflate your own ‘achievements’ detracts from your argument at best; at worst, it reveals your own mediocrity and insecurities.

The author makes very good points and backs them up with actual appeals authority. He uses actual logic and gives good examples.

Take yourself down a peg, bro.

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Since you are so fond of logic, you should apply it while you read. I am not trying to gain traction with my nomination. It is an example of how much you can advance yourself when you forbid yourself from copying and pasting.

Try reading things correctly next time. You'll find yourself in a much better position.

Thread Thread
jfbrennan profile image
Jordan Brennan

Trump was qualified. He proved virtually every critic and “expert” wrong on economy, foreign policy, racism, energy, etc.:

  • Strongest economy in history
  • Ensured America was energy independent
  • Kicked ISIS’s ass after Obama completely fumbled that one
  • Exemplary diplomacy and show of strength with N Korea and Russia relations
  • Record peace-making progress in Middle-East
  • Put China on defense in a trade war (elites sabotaged that)
  • Supported Oportunity Zones, record HBC funding, lowest unemployment rate among Blacks, rational prison reform
  • Cut tons of pointless red tape, lowered business taxes
  • Defended freedom of speech, i.e. the single greatest driving force behind a healthy democracy
  • Put America first, as all great Presidents do!
Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Thanks for the piece of data. I really cannot care any less since I'm not a US citizen.

Thread Thread
pawelzaicwttech profile image
Paweł Zaic

Your ego is so high, that you better watch out to not fall from it - you may hurt yourself ;]

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Yeah, that only applies to things that are volatile. My "ego" as you say, is "flying high" based on rock-solid knowledge acquirement. Unless I have a stroke or something, I'll remain "high". But thanks for worrying! 😏 And welcome to my fan base. It is amazing how people try to bring you down. As I have told others, hate demonstrations just tell me how higher I am from the average crowd.

Finally, you may want to read more than one message in a thread. Cheers, fan.

oncet profile image

I am the developer I am because I forbid myself from copying/pasting.

Hard to be believe that that alone is what makes you a great developer.

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

It does. Debug the statement. If you cannot copy and paste, you must do it some other way. This invariably takes you done the path of simple things like inheritance and virtual methods to complex design patterns. While you learn all this you learn all sorts of "peripheral" knowledge. Yes, you must be knowledge-thirsty.

Thread Thread
oncet profile image

I think we are referring to different things when we say "copy/paste", I don't mean blindly copying stuff from StackOverflow. I mean copy/pasting code you wrote yourself, and I think that's what the article also refers to.

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Exactly. I am talking about the bad practice of copying and pasting pieces of code to create repetitions as opposed to applying a better coding practice.

davidmorais profile image
David Morais

Get bent with your fancy nominations. Your argument is INVALID.

Thread Thread
webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas

Loving all the hate. LOL. It just tells me how much I have surpassed the crowd.

lonyless profile image
Victor Batista


designbyonyx profile image
Ryan Wheale

I kind of informerly follow this pattern - you can't really create the right abstraction until you understand at least 2 different use cases - but you are essentially moving towards DRY code, which is not what this article suggests.

The problem with taglines like "please repeat yourself" is that developers will read that and take it to heart. Our industry doubles in numbers every 3-4 years, meaning most developers are still pretty young, and they should not be armed with this type of mentality.

Furthermore, every line of code is maintenance, and maintenance is 70% of our lives in software. Every time you delete a line of code, that's one less thing to maintain. Lets say someone finds a bug and fixes it, but they didn't go searching around the entire codebase to see if the bug existed somewhere else? Now you're just deploying software with the same bug... fixed in one place but not others. It's a false sense of "it's fixed".

Maybe this product mentiioned in the article could make many more millions if the developers weren't makeing the same feature enhancements 20 times across 20 nearly identical files.

Maybe that first abstraction took 2 days to implement, but now the shared library is in place and all shared code can now be put there with even less effort that copy/paste. Those 2 days ended up saving them weeks in the long run.

jfbrennan profile image
Jordan Brennan

Write WET code, then DRY it out as the benefits become compelling enough. That could mean enough devs need that now so make it a shared lib, or it's short and simple but has been repeated like 4-5 times now, is long and complicated and error-prone and is needed in a 2nd place.

I've seen excellent DRY abstractions pay for themselves 100 times over while building large apps and internally-shared libs. And I've seen folks waste hours and hours on academically perfect code only for it all to get deleted a month later when the Product team pivots.

ralphcone profile image
Rafal Stozek

I'm not advocating in any way that what was done in that case was a good idea, just that you can still succeed even without perfect code. I'll add a sentence there to explain that. It's fair point that this could be misunderstood.

ucvdesh profile image
Daniel Silva

So, you like to work twice and make the development process slower to avoid thinking? I know that you don't have to overthink everything, but it's a basic thing to think before coding to avoid make a bulky and heavy project.

jfbrennan profile image
Jordan Brennan

No, but I'm happy to move fast and work twice when it avoids sinking waaaaaaay too much effort into something prematurely. Things change, tradeoffs have to be made. It's about maximizing my efforts when and where it truly is needed vs. treating everything as equal. Not all code is equal. For example:

Got some repetition in your app's HTML classes? No biggie, do not waste your time DRYing that markup.
Got some repetition in your shared design system? Oooh, better clean that up.

Got an inefficient algorithm in an internal tool that never deals with large datasets? Forget about it!
Got an inefficient algorithm behind a customer-facing feature that hogs resources and takes 3x as long to execute? Drop what you're doing and perfect that algorithm and make sure it has full test coverage. Now!

tandrieu profile image
Thibaut Andrieu

Image description

I had so many arguments with colleagues about copy/pasting ! Even wrote an article about it:

I would add:
Why do we need to factorize code ? Because we don't want that 2 part of code having the same goal diverge. But what about 2 part of code having different goal but implemented with the same code ? Should we factorize those 2 identical code ?

Hell, no ! If you do this, you will end up one day or another with a single function (a module, an entry point, whatever) that will implement 2 different behavior with a big if statement. And not a single if, but a lot of small if interleaved with common behavior.

Factorizing code is a good practice, but it is not a dogma.

ralphcone profile image
Rafal Stozek

A false abstraction is a great example of that!

Sadly dogma in software development often kills rational discussion and pragmatism. People are way too emotionally attached to some things.

devmando profile image

I was one of those Devs that wrote code that was ALWAYS DRY.
I'll be honest it's so hard for me to write WET code because it's been indoctrinated into my mind all throughout college.

Most of the codebases I've worked in don't keep things DRY, I've always found myself saying "oh man, you could encapsulate this into a function and then clean this up quite a bit, why didn't they keep things dry?"

Up until recently, my new boss started to tell me, "You know those devs that are DRY devs, they need to let the application cook"

"Once you have an application working really well, you then can clean it up , but it needs to cook!"

Just this year I've realized this is true and I'm starting to like it.
You build an application with well-written code and let it cook/bake and once you have a good working product, you can identify where you can keep things DRY and clean things up a bit.

Definitely an interesting subject.

thadanzar profile image

Love this,
"Once you have an application working really well, you then can clean it up , but it needs to cook!".

noriller profile image
Bruno Noriller

More than all those rules and acronyms, it's better to follow the kaizen methodology of continuous improvement, or what some people like Uncle Bob say as "boy's scout rule" of "leaving the code better than how you found it".

I do however like to point: just because it works, doesn't mean it's done. Some people see it working and commit without even giving it a little refactoring.

ehaynes99 profile image
Eric Haynes

Overabstraction is the root of all evil. I never say never, and absolutely don't believe in absolutes, but that's always true, 100% of the time. :)

Seriously, bad abstractions are 90% of the problems in our industry. When someone asks you how to make a ham sandwich, you don't say:

  • use the AbstractLocomotionService to locomote the AbstractYouRepresentation to the AbstractPantryLikeFoodItemContainer
  • as the AbstractFoodItemContainerRetriever to retrieve the AbstractBreadItem<WhiteBreadIdentifier, StandardLoafType, [SlicedIdentifier]> where slices.length > 2 (the crust pieces no one wants)
  • ...

You get the idea.

Get the bread. Get the mayo. Get the ham. Stack in sandwich form. Eat.

jrock2004 profile image
John Costanzo

I think sometimes dev spend way more time abstracting then just coding the solution and come back to refactor if it needs abstraction

peterwitham profile image
Peter Witham

It's funny, I was having a conversation similar to this just recently that lead me to talking about shipping code rather than over working it.

I think that where possible repeating is not great, but it's not deadly either.

Indeed, I often repeat myself whilst working on a solution until I know that I'm either close or have what I need and then consider if it makes sense to abstract and use many, or just leave in place and repeat somewhere else.

I think it is all too easy and often to peer pressured to make code the absolute best it can be with so many best practices that it ends up being unreadable or unmaintainable further down the road when it has not been looked at for months and now needs changing.

So I say, go with what works and ship. There will always be another revision where the question of DRY can be asked again to see if the answer needs changing.

mykezero profile image

Another reason you may want to duplicate the code is that they have to different consumers, which can independently. The effects of this are twofold:

  1. The consumer will drive the final implementation of the code unit (they have two different purposes).
  2. You don't want a bug in one code unit rippling into the other (strive for stability in the feature).

Of course you can refactor code into reusable code units, but it ultimately comes down to balancing the qualities of the software system like maintainability and stability, which we get to do by writing and refactoring the code.

webjose profile image
José Pablo Ramírez Vargas
  1. There are many ways to avoid it. Virtual methods is the first that comes to my mind.
  2. What if you are already providing the bug? Bugs are not bugs unless they are uncovered. What if you make the duplication of code before you uncover the bug? This argument does not stand on its own.
taikedz profile image
Tai Kedzierski

I've just spent a few months writing an abstraction framework for interacting with our simulation hardware - we have hardware simulating fluidic movements for a medical testing device, and as part of our CI, we want to automatically test changes to the product without having someone hooked up to an eternal drip feed...

In constructing this framework, I had a few considerations, not least the assurance of maintainability, and certainly including concerns of maintainability.

One of the things is that there are several channels into the device, in the form of binary or text streams, operating in the background so we didn't lose any outputs. For those, I made sure to have abstractions in place in terms of a threaded stream reader that many other types of streams could benefit from.

On the other end, we had several types of streams that would use this same threaded stream mechanism with a couple small variations. Each read method was coded nearly exactly the same in about 4 lines, but with a few adjustments. I unified those adjustments into a single method (and thus, an additional abstraction).

The end API functions I exposed are coded each nearly identically, except for any of their corner cases. I could actually have abstracted those further.... I did not.

At some point I decided that the abstractions and redirections were too deep and accepted a certain level of repetition at the higher levels, whilst keeping the "conceptual" (repetitious) elements genericised.

I am a fool for following a (self-coined) mantra: "Solve the general case".

Sometimes that mantra is unhelpful. There have been some projects that didn't require such zeal and precision. But I was never able to know this in advance. So I have applied those rules. Abstractions, abstractions, abstractions.

At the end of it, to figure out where something comes from, I have to delve down several layers before figuring out a single issue.

I'm not advocating anything here really.... just a personal diatribe on how it is difficult sometimes to decide when to "just do it"... and when to "think architecturally."

brainwipe profile image
Rob Lang

In my opinion, YAGNI, DRY, WET, SOLID, CUPID, GoF are all tools to be applied appropriately and I agree that vilifying it is a problem. In face to face conversations with developers of some experience, we know this to be true.

The root of that problem is clickbait titled articles. Like this one. 90% of junior devs (who we are appealing to in the articles), will read the title, share it and move on.

Your article is good. If the title wasn't so utterly terrible, I'd share it with the team. Please don't clickbait in future.

virtualmachine profile image

The first story explains that the code was written at the time by a novice, should we hold a novice to the same level of competence as a pro? From your quick Google search "it reduces the quality of code", if you believe in repetition you should have left their code as is.
The second story is just a developer who doesn't understand the principles of DRY. It's a function that encapsulates code, an abstraction by all ramifications, according to DRY principles you just use the function. They should have rewritten their entire language API if they feel reusing code is bad.
I agree software principles are correct 80% of the time but these principles need to be understood properly.

ralphcone profile image
Rafal Stozek

The first story explains that the code was written at the time by a novice, should we hold a novice to the same level of competence as a pro? From your quick Google search "it reduces the quality of code", if you believe in repetition you should have left their code as is.

I think repetition is a temporary state until you figure out the right abstractions, so leaving that code as is - when it hindered further development of the codebase at this point - would be a bad choice. I don't "believe in repetition" because coding is not a religion. I think it is useful in small, healthy amounts and not something we should avoid at any cost.

The second story is just a developer who doesn't understand the principles of DRY

I agree. But that's the point though. People treating coding principles as dogma instead of actually understanding them. I wrote this piece to convience people try to start treating it less as dogma or "good practices that you just need to apply" and start thinking more about why, how and when to apply them.

I agree software principles are correct 80% of the time but these principles need to be understood properly.


qorbani profile image
Reza Qorbani

You need to apply more than one principle if you want to be successful! Engineer

Ignoring DRY is not a solution AT ALL! One of my top principles that I use alongside DRY is YAGNI (You Ain’t Gonna Need It) which means if you don’t need to build common library to enforce DRY, then you should not do it!! That simple!

Don’t try to use these Principles in silos and try to build a practice of applying top principles alongside each other.

My best combination is (In order of priority):

  • KISS
  • SOC
  • DRY
frandev profile image

I agree, in my personal case, in the past i was fall into imaginary abstractions only because i was not want to repeat some little pice of code, by a little amoung of time. This imaginary anstractions were a headache since then.

From my experience, it is quite better first code, and then, refactor that code identifying the actual abstractions

noverkill profile image
noverkill • Edited

Can't agree more. 20 years ago I worked at a company where we used a kind of template code base to develop web portals. This base code was copy pasted every time a new page with new functionality is needed and we just made the necessary modifications, and as the base was very generic, usually very little modification were needed. We just had to make the modification that was specific to that new page / functionality the rest remained basically the same damn duplicated code. And our life was nice and easy... I have never seen a more productive way of doing development ever since. Also it was very easy to understand / modify / debug the code base which was actually in 80 % percent duplicated code. But how beautiful and generic was that duplicated code, that you could see everywhere in the application. The way that it got so generic by time, is that we always improved this generic part of the code as we worked on more and more projects, so by time it just got more and more perfect.
This kind of code base full of duplicated, generic code, needless to say is very very easy to understand, follow as you basically have the same things going on everywhere with very little alteration.Also there is so many tool you can use to modify code with repeating pattern in bulk. (e.g. sed etc..) So it is not a problem at all, but the opposite. It is very very easy to do... Of course after improving these generic code base for years, it would have been also easy to refactor and remove the duplicity. But actually if you have enough experience and you can imagine how easy is to work this way, or you have even worked with generic code templates before, you can easily understand that removing the duplicity and try to reuse the code in any other way would have just made the development more problematic, more complicated and complex. So there was no point to do that.

On the other hand If I have a look to code written with frameworks like Laravel, Symphony etc. which are popular nowadays, they are much much much worse to work with in every respect.... Much harder to understand, follow, debug, modify, learn... IMHO today with all of these over-engineered over-hyped engineering patterns and principles people just make their own life basically a living hell.They do not even have an idea that coding can be done in a much simpler way. They just follow the mainstream. Nobody wants to understand that over-complicating things, targeting complexity with more complexity are not a smart thing at all, but right the opposite! It is like people just try to show how can somebody create an incredibly over-complicated obscure solution for even the simplest problem. E,g, targeting a simple problem using these framework is a huge over kill for starting. It is like they just want to make sure nobody can understand how stuff work and then they think they are smart when nobody can understand the obscurity they create. It is kind of like a stupid mind game for people who feel like they are mentally superior. They think over-complicating things will make them look smarter. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I have also seen many very successful projects generating million of dollars in revenue used by millions of people with a code base so simple contradicting every currently popular over-complicated over-hyped principles and patterns. Lacking actually all of that. To be honest all really successful applications are like that. They target complexity with simplicity and not the opposite or any other way. The real genius is when somebody solving the complex problem with simplicity. The problem that you need to solve can be complex and complicated but not your solution. The solution for a complex problem must be not more complicated and complex than it is needed as a minimum. The problem is that people mix this up and think if they can solve simple problems in a complex way then they can also do the opposite. It can be further from the truth. I also have to say that after 20+ years in development I have seen many many different code base. I have seen many duplicated code. The problem is not the duplication itself. It all depends what kind of code gets duplicated. The problem is when horrible code gets duplicated, and this is what happens most of the time and this is why code duplication has a bad reputation. But again it is not the duplication itself theproblem... When good quality code gets duplicated with a good reason, then it is actually very good thing and does not necessarily need any changing.
The stupidity is to blame the duplication itself instead of the horrible code that gets duplicated.
If you think about this is how these stupid principles get built by idiots.
Like "code duplication" is the root if the evil LOL
If you think about it, it is actually scary how many stupid "engineer" are there in this industry to make it possible to these baseless "principles" to raise to existence.

yahyaerturan profile image
Yahya Erturan • Edited

Over-engineering is a killer. Agreed, however if you are developing some library, some component or similar, abstraction definitely makes you think better and it results with a better output mostly. Yet, I believe first code it, make it work, use it in real life projects to understand possible use cases. Then make it better with refactoring, abstraction, etc. For my experience, it is mostly more obtainable goal.

ayoubmehd profile image

I think "please repeat yourself" fall in to:

  • building the right abstraction require time that the product need for something else
  • for test, I think that test need to be simple, because how can you make sure that tests are working? Am I wrong?