> Yet they are robust - all the bugs in the commonly traficked code paths have already been sussed out There are two ways this can be true: if the code paths u

> Yet they are robust - all the bugs in the commonly traficked code paths have already been sussed out There are two ways this can be true: if the code paths users traffic are debugged, and if users only traffic code paths that are not buggy. In the end, all and only the code paths that are used are useful. Isn't that a truism? Like I said, I feel this perspective (and thank you for responding!). But I'm kind of sick of working on codebases that are absolutely littered with dead code paths that are hopelessly interwoven with live code paths, to the point that when you know you're breaking something, you hope you're only breaking something that isn't used. To me, it's a really depressing, fatalistic worldview. > A lot of these programs become immutable logs - if you want to change a feature, you add more code because you're afraid to touch anything that already exist. Amen to that. Can we as an industry find ways to do this better in the first place, instead of resigning ourselves to "immutable log" as an inevitability?