• Lysergid@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I don’t understand too. Are you suggesting me to drop bunch of features in the product?

      • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        No, that means you falling into author’s bait where they misuse term “delete”. Refactoring is not equal to deleting. One can be result of another. But the truth is that extendable code needs to be modular to be extendable. And modular code is easy to refactor. Author couldn’t not name it “Write code that is easy to refactor, not easy to extend” coz it’s even more dumb

    • samus7070@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think the responder means that duplicate code is usually easy to refactor into single methods. Typically I see copy pasted code that is changed just a little bit. However much of a duplicated function can be broken into smaller functions and the redundant code removed in favor of calling into the functions. Often what is left then becomes easier to reason about and refactor accordingly. I love the PRs that I make which delete more code than I add but still manage to add functionality. It doesn’t happen often but it’s fun when it does.

      • Lysergid@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        Right, but my initial comment was about article’s statement being wrong. Refactoring in the way you described will make code harder to delete which is bad according to the article.