The interesting thing about DRY is that opinions about it seem to depend on what project you’ve worked on most recently: I inherited a codebase written by people skeptical of DRY, and we had a lot of bugs that resulted from “essential duplication”. Other people inherit code written by “architecture astronauts”, and assume that the grass is greener on the WET side of the fence.

Personally, having been in both situations, I’d almost always prefer to untangle a bad abstraction rather than maintain a WET codebase.

Or, put another way: I'd much rather deal with duplication than with coupling problems.

I think the single biggest factor determining the difficulty of a code change is the size of the codebase. Codebases with a lot of duplication are larger, and the scale itself makes them harder to deal with. You may not even realize when duplication exists because it may be spread throughout the code. It may be difficult to tell which code is a duplicate, which is different for arbitrary reasons, and which is different in subtle but important ways.

Once you get to a huge sprawl of code that has a ton of mostly-pointless repetition, it is a nightmare to tame it. I would much rather be handed a smaller but more intertwined codebase that only says something once.

Often, they are.

IME, a very common pattern is divergent copypasta where – because there is no connection once the copying occurs – a bug is noticed and fixed in one place and not in others, later noticed separately and fixed a slighly different way in some of the others, in still others a different thing that needs done in the same function gets inserted in between parts of the copypasta, etc. IT’s still essentially duplication – more over its still the same logical function being performed different places, but in slightly different ways, creating a singificant multiple on maintainance cost, which – not literal code duplication in and of itself, is the actual problem addressed with DRY, which is explicitly not about duplication of code but single source of truth of knowledge: “Every piece of knowledge must have a single, unambiguous, authoritative representation within a system”. Divergent implementations of the same logical function are different representations of the same knowledge.

Repeating what others already mentioned, often it can be the same thing but written in a slightly different way. Even basic stuff like string formatting vs string concatenation can make it non-obvious that two pieces of code are copies.

Fixing a bad abstraction is only hard because there's some weird culture about not tearing down abstractions. Rip them apart and toss them on the heap. It's a million times easier than finding duplicate code that has inadvertently drifted apart over time.

When I asked exactly what they were trying to accomplish they kept saying "they didn't want caching in two places". I think anyone with experience can see that these items are unrelated beyond both having the word "cache"

This is what was actually hanging them up ... the language. Particularly the word "cache". I've seen this trap walked into over and over. Where a person tries to "unify" logic simply because two sets of logic contain some of the same words.