[shrimp_emoji]

> It’s almost always better to repeat code.

God no. Stop the copy pasta disease! It's horrible, mindless programming.

When reviewing code, I'm astonished anything was accomplished by copy pasting so much old code (complete with bugs and comment typos).

Incidentally, OOP encourages you to copy a lot. It's just an engine for generating code bloat. Want to serialize some objects? Here's your Object serializer and your overloaded Car serialize and your overloaded Boat serializer, with only a few different fields to justify the difference!

OOP is bad. Copy pasta is bad. DRY is good. All hail DRY, forever, at any cost.

[jddj]

Countless man-centuries have been lost looking for the perfect abstraction to cover two (or an imagined future with two) cases which look deceptively similar, then teasing them apart again.

[zerbinxx]

OOP and Dry are compatible! I’ve actually done the thing that the above commenter suggests - create a base object with created on/by so that I never have to think about it. Whether or not you actually care about that, if you implement a descended of that object you’re going to get some stuff for free, and you’re gonna like it!

[solumunus]

Nobody, ever, is claiming no abstractions are useful or worthwhile. The issue is DRY implies that you should always look for an abstraction to avoid repeating yourself. Trust me, that way lies madness. It should be “sometimes repeat yourself, based on enough context, consideration and experience”. But that’s not as snappy.

[hooverd]

For what it's worth, I've always had an easier time combining WET code than untangling the knot than is too DRY code. Too little abstraction and you might have to read some extra code to understand it. Too much abstraction and no one other than the writer, and even then, may ever understand it.