submitted 1 year ago by Krafting@lemmy.world to c/programmerhumor@lemmy.ml

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] vanZuider@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

That's intentional. So if one part of the code suffers a random mutation and spontaneously develops a bug, the redundant code can still ensure the proper functioning of the program while the bug gets fixed.

Just take care if you merge two branches that contain the same bug; you might end up with a program without functional redundant code. That's why you should never merge closely related branches.

[-] nekomusumeninaritai@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

It's how ~~isoforms~~ functions with different signatures evolve. As long as it isn't harmful it tends to stick around. Then the different code may develop adaptations which fit it into a niche if it is a selective advantage for the ~~organism~~ code base.

[-] DonjonMaister@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

Applying the (DRY) Do Repeat Yourself principle.

[-] abieNathanTheyThem@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Depends on what you are developing & the language used but a simpler codebase is the definition of security/privacy by design that's how you get more power.