> No, Chesterton's Fence says for you to leave and think about why someone put it up originally, and figure out what was good about the fence I don't see as mu

> No, Chesterton's Fence says for you to leave and think about why someone put it up originally, and figure out what was good about the fence I don't see as much difference between that and "figure out what the code does" as you do. I agree they have some differences, but ultimately a code's functionality and the reasons why its functionality exists in its current location are strongly related. The "go away first" part is a parable, I don't think you have to actually go away. Overall I'm somewhere between you and the article's author. I think your ignorant ancients argument has some merit, but only in certain cases. For instance, I don't see why the author is assuming people who promote flat hierarchy companies never actually considered what the function of the hierarchy was. This seems pretty ironic given that his whole point is not to assume that builders haven't engaged their brains. Also, as with ignorant ancients, it's possible that these hierarchies evolved, which could mean they're functional but not optimal, and may in fact no longer be required. On the technical side, I think we've all sat down to rewrite some code that looks too complex, only to have the reasons for the complexity become apparent as we research the subject. This might just be a case for better documentation.