Not accredited, but I applaud the effort. However, I decided to check out CS 101 to see what they were offering. I am compelled to slog through the entire course to form a full opinion but the content seems to have been assembled from ninth grade term papers. The first two reading exercises contain very little in the form of correct grammar, proper spelling, and coherent thought.
Interesting. I've mostly been a consumer here and rarely submit or comment but even so I never realized there was a guidelines page. Honestly, unless I need to find a "contact us" link I rarely look at the footer or any website. Perhaps a little more visibility of its existence would go a long way.
It would have been nice for the author to recognize that the reason that we have the DRY principle is because there is a natural need to repeat. If information and processes didn't need to be repeated then DRY wouldn't exist in the first place.
I wouldn't describe it so much as a natural need to repeat -- rather that we use references to link concepts.
e.g.
I have an allergy attack.
Allergy medication will relieve an allergy attack.
I desire allergy medication.
I will go to the drug store and ask for allergy medication.
The underlying model consists mainly of the concepts of allergy, attack, and medication. These concepts are repeated several times, because we are describing relationships between them. Note that each use adds significant new information.
However, the sense of repeat used in the submitted article rather concerns redundancy, whereby the concept itself or a particular relationship is repeated in a redundant manner, without adding new information. This is merely to prevent miscommunication.
I would say that's pretty close to true, yes. If you look at most successful human communication, the important points are almost always repeated. If the communicator is good, he will have rephrased things such that you don't immediately notice that the same thing is being said over and over, but it's definitely there.
I struggle with this question when I write. On the one hand, I sometimes feel like I am "repeating myself but with rephrasing". On the other hand, I find that those instances of rephrasing adds content. I often get accused of being excessively long-winded, yet when I shorten things too much, I get wildly misunderstood.
I find that many people don't have the context. I suspect part of it is that I don't see the world the same way most people see it. Shorter remarks rely on shared context to be properly understood. Example: In my teens, I remarked to my father that I was considering "running" (something). I was a role playing gamer considering taking up gamemastering. He assumed I meant jogging for exercise. I didn't bother to try to correct. It seemed futile.
