Programming

17519 readers

402 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe

Ategon

[email protected]

Opinions on how to deal with duplicate code. (self.programming)

submitted 1 year ago by lysdexic to c/programming

25 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The "don't repeat yourself" principle is well established, but over-aggressive refactorizarions to extract common code are also widely known for creating hard to maintain code due to the introduction of tight coupling between components that should not be coupled. A passing resemblance between code blocks is reason enough to extract them away, even if that ends up breaking Liskov's substitution principle.

To mitigate problems caused by DRY fundamentalisms, the "write everything twice" (WET) principle was coined. WET works by postponing aggressive refactorizarions, the kind that introduces complexity and couples unrelated code just because it bears some resemblance, by creating a rule of thumb where similar code blocks showing up twice in the code should not be refactored, and only code that shows up multiple times should be considered for this task. However, this rule ignores context and nuances, and can dissuade developers from cleaning up code.

So, where do you stand on the topic? How do you deal with duplicate code? Do you follow any specific rule of thumb?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lysdexic -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

WET is not what you think it is, or at least not originally. It’s not some alternative to DRY. It didn’t stand for Write Everything Twice. It stands for Write Every Time. It’s supposed to be a negative way to describe code that isn’t DRY. It’s also abbreviated as “Waste Everyone’s Time”.

I think you're confusing things. Write Everything Twice (WET) has no resemblance with the concept you mentioned, which makes no sense to be a standalone concept or even rule of thumb.

WET is a clear guideline to avoid usual code quality problems caused by premature specialization and tight coupling which result from DRY fundamentalisms. WET puts on hold the propencity to waste time with code churn. It's importance is clear to anyone who maintains software.

The misunderstanding since DRY’s coining is probably because, like natural language, we change meanings we with our environment.

Not really. Your comment sounds like a weak attempt at revisionism. Some reference books like Bob Martin's Clean Code explicitly cover DRY and the importance of refactoring away any duplicate code.

WET springs from this fundamentalist mindset. There is no two ways about it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You wrote:

To mitigate problems caused by DRY fundamentalisms, the "write everything twice" (WET) principle was coined.

I'm listing when and how it was coined with the article that coined it. If you have another source to claim it wasn't in the fashion I've described feel free to provide sources to the contrary. I even sources it from the very Wikipedia entry you shared.

WET is a clear guideline

Again, feel free to provide sources to back up your claim.

Your comment sounds like a weak attempt at revisionism.

Again. Feel free to back up your claims with actual sources. The concept of AHA by Kent C Dobbs, of Angular fame says:

There's another concept that people have referred to as WET programming which stands for "Write Everything Twice." That's similarly dogmatic and over prescriptive. Conlin Durbin has defined this as [...]

https://kentcdodds.com/blog/aha-programming

He then goes on to link to the article/blog I mentioned where Durbin states:

Instead, I propose WET programming.

And he goes on to explain this new concept of Write Everything Twice.

If you actually interested in discussion about the debate of DRY/WET/AHA, I'm all for it. But don't misinterpret or try to change what is already well-written.

Also, don't throw accusations at people who provide you documentation and proof and then contest while providing absolutely none yourself. That doesn't sound like any earnest interest in discussion.