3 ms·

I agree with what you mean, but I’d nitpick and say it’s not the code itself that’s the asset, but rather the behaviour of that code when executed. If you could

I agree with what you mean, but I’d nitpick and say it’s not the code itself that’s the asset, but rather the behaviour of that code when executed. If you could refactor and get the same behaviour with less code (whatever that means), that’d be a net win, right? So the quantity of code is making a negative contribution.

nohuck13 4y ago
Put another way, the feature is an asset, the code is a liability.
__del__ 4y ago
i'd nitpick about less code being a benefit (but perhaps that's why you said 'whatever that means') see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_golf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_golf