> I've seen terrible code with plenty of quick hacks on top of that, which was running very stable, because it was battle tested for years in production. "Batt

> I've seen terrible code with plenty of quick hacks on top of that, which was running very stable, because it was battle tested for years in production. "Battle tested" is not what is meant by testing here, though. And I've seen software that was "battle tested" and rock-solid despite barely being _actively_ tested at all. Mind you, it was at least part of the economics of the software itself - "battle" (i.e. "in production") testing was perfectly viable in its case.