[a1369209993]

> Whenever I have to work with a project where someone used DRY []consciously[], I know I am in for a world of pain.

Huh. When you put it that way, that's actually a good point. In my experience, competent programming will try to consolidate repeated code, and then cite "because DRY" if asked why, but I can't think of any case where I or anyone else competent started with "needs more DRY" as the original motivation (as opposed to "this is a incomprehensibly verbose mess" or the like).

Conversely, starting with "don't repeat yourself [and don't let anything else repeat itself]" as a design goal does seem to correlate well with cases where someone temporarily (newbie) or permanently (moron/ideologue) incompentent followed that design principle off a cliff.