A nit; DRY is probably not what you think it is. DRY is basically the same as SR...

begueradj · 2024-11-18T12:58:00 1731934680

Quoted: "You can still not repeat yourself but violate single responsibility"

(https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/2207...)

safetytrick · 2024-11-18T23:06:05 1731971165

Quoted: "Likewise, you can repeat yourself but classes only have a single (duplicated, but subtly different) responsibility."

deathanatos · 2024-11-19T07:15:02 1732000502

I think it's the same thing, but I usually postulate DRY as semantically identical code, not merely syntactically identical.

"Byte for byte equivalent" doesn't necessarily mean it's a copy, if the semantics of it are different.

vbezhenar · 2024-11-18T13:11:11 1731935471

The problem with definition is that it's subjective and cannot be checked automatically. So my definition was about mechanistic DRY, which is objective and checked by linter.