←back to thread

Duplication Isn't Always an Anti-Pattern

(medium.com)
52 points birdculture | 1 comments | 02 Dec 25 08:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
vanschelven ◴[07 Dec 25 14:47 UTC] No.46182035[source]▶
When a colleague told my father that "duplication is always bad" he grabbed a random memo from that colleague's desk and said "I bet there's at least 3 copies of this piece of paper in this building". That drove the point home alright.
replies(2): >>46182167 #>>46182487 #
esafak ◴[07 Dec 25 15:41 UTC] No.46182487[source]▶
This is not the riposte you might think it is. Duplication serves a different purpose in print; it lets you avoid having to pass the memo around.
replies(1): >>46184349 #
1. vanschelven ◴[07 Dec 25 19:31 UTC] No.46184349[source]▶
I think the riposte is against the word "always" and it worked precisely because one could blindly pick a counter example from the physical space of the discussion.

I.e. it worked because it smashed the broad statement and forced a discussion about particulars. Now who was right about those, I have no idea, since I wasn't even present.