←back to thread

1455 points nromiun | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
exclipy ◴[] No.45077894[source]
This was my main takeaway from A Philosophy Of Software Design by John Ousterhout. It is the best book on this subject and I recommend it to every software developer.

Basically, you should aim to minimise complexity in software design, but importantly, complexity is defined as "how difficult is it to make changes to it". "How difficult" is largely determined by the amount of cognitive load necessary to understand it.

replies(11): >>45077906 #>>45077954 #>>45078135 #>>45078497 #>>45078728 #>>45078760 #>>45078826 #>>45078970 #>>45079961 #>>45080019 #>>45082718 #
bsenftner ◴[] No.45077954[source]
Which is why I consider DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself) to be an anti-rule until an application is fairly well understood and multiple versions exist. DO repeat yourself, and do not create some smart version of what you think the problem is before you're attempting the 3rd version. Version 1 is how you figure out the problem space, version 2 is how you figure out your solution as a maintainable dynamic thing within a changing tech landscape, and version 3 is when DRY is look at for the first time for that application.
replies(5): >>45078178 #>>45078299 #>>45078606 #>>45078696 #>>45079410 #
1. cyberax ◴[] No.45079410[source]
DRY means something completely different. It means that there should be just one source of truth.

Example: you have a config defined as Java/Go classes/structures. You want to check that the config file has the correct syntax. Non-DRY strategy is to describe its structure in an XSD schema (ok, ok JSON schema) and then validate the config. So you end up with two sources of truth: the schema and Java/Go classes, they can drift apart and cause problems.

The DRY way is to generate the classes/structures that define the config from that schema.