Talk:Duplicate code

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

What is a public tool? I see my addition of SolidCD has been removed. I assume that is because it links to a non OSS application. Then why are other similar applications allowed (e.g.,Simian, CP-Miner)?

The article offers reducing file size as motivation for duplicate reduction. Really? Seems a pretty trivial reason. How about the fact that code faults are proportional to lines of code? That seems to me to be a much bigger issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.5.154 (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism causes duplication?

Plagiarism, where code is simply copied without permission or attribution. How is plagarism a cause of duplication any more so than citing the original code and then doing a copy paste. This one doesn't seem to fit with the rest of teh article. Maxximillian (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree; the only connection that plagiarized code has to duplication is if it is copied multiple times, in which case, it is not plagiarism that’s the cause of the problem, but copy-pasting which was already covered. Synetech (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animation

I want to add the animation to the article and i have a list of questions: Are there any issues with my animation? What can be improved in it? Are there any objections against including this animation in the article? What section of the article is the best place for this image?

Bokanko (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and add it. --46.164.144.162 (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

inserted it

--Biggerj1 (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your animation makes the text difficult to read and distracts readers attention away from the text; for this reason we shouldnt have any animations. thus i moved it downwards to solve this problem. Μαρία Καππάτου (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tools Section

I have seen links on the Internet (e.g., on StackOverflow) which link to the Tools section in this article, but that section does not exist. Most articles about computers tend to have some sort of list of popular tools for whatever the task is, so this should too. If there are not enough to justify a whole comparison of duplicate-code–detection tools article, then a section in the main article is appropriate. Synetech (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duplicate code. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20121211121637/http://students.cis.uab.edu/tairasr/clones/literature/ to http://students.cis.uab.edu/tairasr/clones/literature/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concern by 173.177.203.139

See Special:Diff/900292056:

→‎Costs and benefits: The conclusion was drawn from a single study on a minimal sample set that is representative only of a tightly controlled segment of software development. That is, automotive, which has very high safety requirements compared to most other software domains (web development, gaming, enterprise IT, etc.)

~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to report specifically about that one study rather than making sweeping (and incorrect) statements. The study did not in fact conclude that duplication wasn't significantly more error prone. In fact it found that it was more error prone. What it found however is that in cases where the programmers changed both code locations, not significantly more faults were found with duplication. But that's a big if isn't it? 2620:0:1000:1C13:FDC3:28D8:6492:E8C1 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]