Every engineering team that picked up a code base has at some point had a meeting where someone starts ranting about how the code that they are looking after st

Every engineering team that picked up a code base has at some point had a meeting where someone starts ranting about how the code that they are looking after stinks and it would be better to rewrite it, or move to some alternative. This seems to be true if the code is the product of one person working for a few weeks or 20,000 people who work for 10 years. A few years ago I had a conversation where the team insisted to me that the extensive documentation and instructions for a package were worthless because "good code is self documenting" the leader of the pack had shiny eyes and banged the table several times. Be cautious, be kind and look for value in the code that you are using - not just problems. Also, consider: if you can pick up a code base (written by someone who knows the science) would it not be more profitable to repair, document and improve rather than demanding that the scientists learn both your skills and your way of doing things? If you conclude the latter, would you (hand on heart) be able to empirically demonstrate that your way of doing things is the right way?