3 ms·
> what I've seen is that code organization has a lot to do with it I suggest that your sample is non-representative. Companies don't hire specialists to refact
by notacoward 8y ago
> what I've seen is that code organization has a lot to do with it
I suggest that your sample is non-representative. Companies don't hire specialists to refactor code that they're abandoning. Dead companies don't hire anyone at all. You don't work on rotten code because nobody does, but that doesn't mean it's not out there.
> That could be read in a way that sounds less than friendly and maybe a bit elitist.
It could, but that would be on the reader. I didn't say anything to denigrate maintenance programmers.
- stcredzero 8y agoCompanies don't hire specialists to refactor code that they're abandoning. Companies do hire specialists to port code that they're not abandoning. Dead companies don't hire anyone at all. "Zombie" companies can still have big revenues and they can and do pay consultants to do things like port old applications. Again, there have been entire companies based on such activity. I've made money from such companies. You don't work on rotten code because nobody does I was a consultant for a language vendor for 5 years, then continued working in that niche for another 5. My sample size in this context is in the many dozens at least. There's a lot of code I'd call "rotten" out there that people still work on. I didn't say anything to denigrate maintenance programmers. Good. I'm sure I've met a number of them who are probably better coders then either of us when they're half asleep.
- stcredzero 8y agoArrgh. Than!