Good Software Development Habits

> It's better to have some wonky parameterization than it is to have multiple implementations of nearly the same thing. Improving the parameters will be easier than to consolidate four different implementations if this situation comes up again.

Hard disagree. If you cant decompose to avoid "wonky parameters" then keep them separate. Big smell is boolean flags (avoid altogether when you can) and more than one enum parameter.

IME "heavy" function signatures are always making things harder to maintain.

I think it's especially bad advice with the "copy paste once is okay". You absolutely do not want multiple (even just two) copies of what's meant to be exactly the same functionality, since now they can accidentally evolve separately. But coupling together things that only happen to be mostly similar even at the expense of complicating their implementation and interface just makes things harder to reason about and work with.

> I think it's especially bad advice with the "copy paste once is okay". You absolutely do not want multiple (even just two) copies of what's meant to be exactly the same functionality, since now they can accidentally evolve separately.

Hard disagree. Your type of misconception is the root cause of most broken and unmaintainable projects, and the root of most technical debt and accidental complexity.

People who follow that simplistic logic of "code can accidentally evolve separately" are completely oblivious to the fact that there is seemingly duplicate code which is only incidentally duplicate, but at its core should clearly be and remain completely decoupled.

More to the point, refactoring two member functions that are mostly the same is far simpler than refactoring N classes and interfaces registered in dependency injection systems required to DRY up code.

I lost count I had to stop shortsighted junior developers who completely lost track of what they were doing and with a straight face were citing DRY to justify adding three classes and a interface to implement a strategy pattern because by that they would avoid adding a duplicate method. Absurd.

People would far better if instead of mindlessly parrot DRY they looked at what they are doing and understood that premature abstractions cause far more problems than the ones they solve (if any).

Newbie, inexperienced developers write complex code. Experienced, seasoned developers write simple code. Knowing the importance of having duplicate code is a key factor.

What thfuran said was:

> You absolutely do not want multiple (even just two) copies of what's meant to be exactly the same functionality, since now they can accidentally evolve separately. But coupling together things that only happen to be mostly similar even at the expense of complicating their implementation and interface just makes things harder to reason about and work with.

So, if things are fundamentally the same, do not duplicate, but if they are fundamentally different, do not unify. This is absolutely correct.

To which you replied:

> People who follow that simplistic logic of "code can accidentally evolve separately" are completely oblivious to the fact that there is seemingly duplicate code which is only incidentally duplicate, but at its core should clearly be and remain completely decoupled.

Despite the fact that this is exactly what the comment you replied to says.

Then you go on a clearly very deeply felt rant about overcomplication via dependency injection and architecture astronautics and so on. Preach it! But this is also nothing to do with what thfuran wrote.

> Newbie, inexperienced developers write complex code. Experienced, seasoned developers write simple code.

Sounds like the kind of overgeneralisation that overconfident mid-career developers make to me.

The issue is that you actually never really know is things are fundamentally the same. To know it you have to know the future.

I think this is what the original post that people took issue with said? By the time you write the same thing for the third time you are not predicting the future any more, you have practical evidence.