> Yes, when the code base is small, evolving it is much simpler. There's obviously some truth to that. But I also think it leaves or an important angle: Often

> Yes, when the code base is small, evolving it is much simpler. There's obviously some truth to that. But I also think it leaves or an important angle: Often larger, more complicated, features are easier to add if you have a lot of infrastructure pieces. Say, in a database, if you have no durability (journaling), resource management (errors, locks), error checking (deadlocks, days checksumming), it'll be a lot more work to add support for some new query language [feature]. Now databases are my thing, but the same it's true for a lot of areas. Disregarding that is IMO one of the reasons ground up rewrites fail so often: You'll get bogged down with infrastructure for a long time, without proper non toy users of the facility.