4 ms·
An airliner certainly is an asset (at least in the hand of a well run airline), but the lighter the frame the better: a lighter frame needs less fuel to fly, he
by Xixi 11y ago
An airliner certainly is an asset (at least in the hand of a well run airline), but the lighter the frame the better: a lighter frame needs less fuel to fly, hence more money remains in the bank at the end. But without frame there's no plane, so you need some of it, just as little as feasible.
It's the same for code: a running program can certainly be a huge asset, but the less code you have the lower the maintenance cost. The concept is just harder to grasp than paying a kerosene bill each time a plane takes off...
- riskable 11y agoI totally agree with your sentiment but I do want to add that adding code can be useful and make it better even if you're not adding functionality. For example, while it may be "cool" to turn a straightforward loop into a complicated one-liner (which would be "removing code while retaining functionality") that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. The longer, more straightforward code is likely to have a lower maintenance cost.
- xj9 11y agoI think the issue is that you are conflating lines of code with complexity. I certainly think it is better to write short programs, but it is wrong to think that less LOC == better code. The most valuable kind of software IMO is the kind you don't think about because it never fails, and at that point your LOC measurements are irrelevant.