> why code that had been dead for 8-years was still present in the code base is a mystery, but that’s not the point It's not the worst mistake in the story, bu

> why code that had been dead for 8-years was still present in the code base is a mystery, but that’s not the point It's not the worst mistake in the story, but it's not "not the point." A proactive approach to pruning dead functionality would have resulted in a less complex, better-understood piece of software with less potential to go haywire. Driving relentlessly forward without doing this kind of maintenance work is a risk, calculated or otherwise.