5 ms·
They were both important and at least for a while, Symbolics had the resources to fully indulge both. Do crappy Google docs assure their ubermenschitude? :) It
by pinewurst 6y ago
They were both important and at least for a while, Symbolics had the resources to fully indulge both. Do crappy Google docs assure their ubermenschitude? :)
It’s two different questions, to discuss the quality of their code and to discuss the value placed on it. It didn’t match the development and operational model of the tech world when they went into receivership, hence a low value.
- ncmncm 6y agoBad code and unimportant code can be as badly documented as (good or bad) important code, and often are. Initial quality of code is largely independent of its importance, although important code improves. I am happy to stipulate that theirs was admirable code, besides being admirably documented. Still: the implication is that few people ran it, and any consequences of running it faded quickly. When there's a choice of only two of good, important, or well-documented, a well-run organization chooses the first two.