6 ms·
> And the code itself is a liability - it must be maintained in the face of changing requirements and technology. A nitpick: the better analogy is that code is
by jacques_chester 5y ago
> And the code itself is a liability - it must be maintained in the face of changing requirements and technology.
A nitpick: the better analogy is that code is an inventory asset. It can decay or rot, it costs money to acquire and money to maintain.
But it is not a debt owed to someone else, as a liability is.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoI was quoting other, smarter, people. https://proxy.c2.com/cgi/wiki?SoftwareAsLiability https://proxy.c2.com/cgi/wiki?SoftwareAsLiability What the code does is an asset. The code itself is a liability. We have "tech debt" that isn't actually owed to anybody yet must be paid.
- jacques_chester 5y agoI disagree with the other, smarter people, is my refined point.
- marcus_holmes 5y agoI get the point. In terms of accounting principles, you're right, technically. But it doesn't drive home the message that more code doesn't mean more asset. Having a developer write more code doesn't automatically create more value. The value is in what the code does, not the code itself. And a developer can actively harm the codebase by working on it. You can pay someone to improve it, and the end result is a decrease in value, not an increase. I'm not sure there are other asset classes that behave the same way. I could be wrong.