<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Vertical Slicing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing/</link>
	<description>… and there is much to be learned</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:46:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter Williams</title>
		<link>http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-84600</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter Williams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://barelyenough.org/?p=466#comment-84600</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Devon,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I apply DRY at the semantic level, rather than syntactic.  Doing so makes it equivalent to SPOT, in my opinion.  The formal definition of DRY is:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
  &lt;p&gt;Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous,
  authoritative representation within a system&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;That seems quite the same as SPOT. (Without the unsavory implication that anything like truth can occur in a computer program.)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I see your point about the potential misapplication of DRY.  It certainly has the potential to result in excessive complexity if applied incorrectly.  However, in my experience, it is far more common for it to be under applied, or ignored entirely, than to be applied at the wrong level.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Devon,</p>
<p>I apply DRY at the semantic level, rather than syntactic.  Doing so makes it equivalent to SPOT, in my opinion.  The formal definition of DRY is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous,<br />
  authoritative representation within a system</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That seems quite the same as SPOT. (Without the unsavory implication that anything like truth can occur in a computer program.)</p>
<p>I see your point about the potential misapplication of DRY.  It certainly has the potential to result in excessive complexity if applied incorrectly.  However, in my experience, it is far more common for it to be under applied, or ignored entirely, than to be applied at the wrong level.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devon Jones</title>
		<link>http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-84599</link>
		<dc:creator>Devon Jones</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://barelyenough.org/?p=466#comment-84599</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I quite agree.  My only area of significant difference is that I prefer to aim for SPOT (single point of truth) as opposed to DRY.  My contention is that when people try to overgeneralize code so that no code is ever repeated, that code becomes inherently more complicated.  If instead you target a system having a SPOT for each piece of data or process, you ensure avoiding connascence of algorithm while allowing the code in each piece to be as simple as possible.  IMHO DRY drives code complexity in ways that SPOT does not. Worded another way, sometimes a little repetition is preferred.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I quite agree.  My only area of significant difference is that I prefer to aim for SPOT (single point of truth) as opposed to DRY.  My contention is that when people try to overgeneralize code so that no code is ever repeated, that code becomes inherently more complicated.  If instead you target a system having a SPOT for each piece of data or process, you ensure avoiding connascence of algorithm while allowing the code in each piece to be as simple as possible.  IMHO DRY drives code complexity in ways that SPOT does not. Worded another way, sometimes a little repetition is preferred.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Weller</title>
		<link>http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-84588</link>
		<dc:creator>Kevin Weller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 23:37:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://barelyenough.org/?p=466#comment-84588</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Nicely put.  However, vertical and horizontal slicing are not mutually exclusive...they can be effectively combined.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nicely put.  However, vertical and horizontal slicing are not mutually exclusive&#8230;they can be effectively combined.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Peter Williams - Vertical Slicing -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing/comment-page-1/#comment-84584</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Peter Williams - Vertical Slicing -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jul 2010 17:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://barelyenough.org/?p=466#comment-84584</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Ray. Jim Ray said: RT @pezra: New blog post: Vertical slicing http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Ray. Jim Ray said: RT @pezra: New blog post: Vertical slicing <a href="http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing" rel="nofollow">http://barelyenough.org/blog/2010/07/vertical-slicing</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

