3 ms·

And on the third hand companies I've worked with had 25-year-old C code bases that seemed to compile and mostly work, but mostly only with -O1 or lower, because

And on the third hand companies I've worked with had 25-year-old C code bases that seemed to compile and mostly work, but mostly only with -O1 or lower, because they've had UB since the beginning of time but only more recent compiler optimizations reveal the underlying issues. And this old code is also written in a style (usually global variables and mixed concerns and years of sub-ideal bug fixes and patches) which makes it very hard to change or modernize (forget adding threads with all of this global mutable state). The only point being that old code may superficially work, but in many cases (in my experience) and regardless of language, it all has technical debt and needs work to keep it relevant.

Drdrdrq 6y ago
Does that matter? The code performs its duty and has for 25 years. If there are bugs in it they clearly haven't been important enough to be fixed. Technical debt? Maybe, but if noone is collecting the fees, who cares? If the situation changes and the original code suddenly becomes a basis for further development then that's a different thing. But cleaning up the code without clear benefit is a waste of resources. Hats off to original developers. Making code that serves its purpose for 25 years is quite an achievement.
- hanselot 6y ago
  As we force people over a certain age into retirement, perhaps this should happen for code bases as well.
- jjnoakes 6y ago
  The code gets bug fixes occasionally because things change (scaling past previous limits, changes in the environment, etc) and of course new features are required once in a while. So the debt usually can't be swept under any carpets. All code rots. If you are lucky to never need to fix it or change it, that's great, but that is (in my experience) extremely rare over time spans measured in decades. Sometimes a code base runs for decades not because it was particularly robust or well-written, but because it is too painful to replace it due to its complexity or the long ago loss of the knowledge needed to work on it.

Drdrdrq 6y ago

Does that matter? The code performs its duty and has for 25 years. If there are bugs in it they clearly haven't been important enough to be fixed. Technical debt? Maybe, but if noone is collecting the fees, who cares? If the situation changes and the original code suddenly becomes a basis for further development then that's a different thing. But cleaning up the code without clear benefit is a waste of resources. Hats off to original developers. Making code that serves its purpose for 25 years is quite an achievement.

hanselot 6y ago
As we force people over a certain age into retirement, perhaps this should happen for code bases as well.
jjnoakes 6y ago
The code gets bug fixes occasionally because things change (scaling past previous limits, changes in the environment, etc) and of course new features are required once in a while. So the debt usually can't be swept under any carpets. All code rots. If you are lucky to never need to fix it or change it, that's great, but that is (in my experience) extremely rare over time spans measured in decades. Sometimes a code base runs for decades not because it was particularly robust or well-written, but because it is too painful to replace it due to its complexity or the long ago loss of the knowledge needed to work on it.