> Existing code exerts a powerful influence. Its very presence argues that it is both correct and necessary. We know that code represents effort expended, and w

> Existing code exerts a powerful influence. Its very presence argues that it is both correct and necessary. We know that code represents effort expended, and we are very motivated to preserve the value of this effort. And, unfortunately, the sad truth is that the more complicated and incomprehensible the code, i.e. the deeper the investment in creating it, the more we feel pressure to retain it In my experience, this is the failure point in thinking about incremental development. A portion of code's mere existence does not make it untouchable -- I constantly express this to my team. If we are presented with new information (such as a capability) that would function best with a refactor, so be it. We have some team members who think the opposite -- that any existing implementation must be preserved (I call this the "incumbency fallacy".) It creates a weird motivation to implement quickly/early, as if getting your pull request in is the most important aspect of your work. And yet, what I find is that early implementations often inform how something should be improved after the fact.