4 ms·
If your “throwaway” code works fine in production for years without any active maintenance and the only down side is that it needs a rewrite five years later, w
by rzimmerman 7y ago
If your “throwaway” code works fine in production for years without any active maintenance and the only down side is that it needs a rewrite five years later, was it really that bad? Or is it the exact thing tech debt refers to - borrowing future time to work on what’s important? If I had to make a point it would be that there’s no line between code that needs to be replaced right now and code that is perfect and lasts for decades - it’s a spectrum and circumstances influence your tolerance.
- hinkley 7y agoThe flip side of this is people who get sunk cost fallacy around that throwaway code. Rewriting a piece of code that’s been in use for two, three years doesn’t invalidate its existence. It wasn’t necessarily a mistake for it to be written that way. It is a mistake to keep on using it, though. I think maybe it’s similar to the way we misuse the term “crutch”. If you have a broken leg use the damn crutches. When your leg heals and you sell the crutches, don’t castigate yourself or anyone else about how useless crutches are. You used them. Past tense. That’s done now, and you’re moving on.