Why do you think that re-writeability matters? People who write code that is difficult to maintain should make more money by virtue of being harder to eliminate

Why do you think that re-writeability matters? People who write code that is difficult to maintain should make more money by virtue of being harder to eliminate. I don't think effective programmers document everything either, but maybe this is an unpopular opinion. What sets really productive people apart in my experience is architecture and domain vision. This is certainly the lesson in the Viaweb example. Without good architecture innovation consists of "feature creep". You've got a good thing when you find yourself with changes that simplify a code base or system while increasing its power. I suspect this is why people who develop their own tools are often seen by others are great programmers, and why Eric Raymond's definition of a hacker is someone who builds their own tools. I'm a worse programmer than a lot of people, but am orders upon orders of magnitude faster than anyone else in my niche domain by virtue of knowing how to do things and leverage existing assets. I assume really good programmers are leveraging their expertise in other areas too. If this is true, I'd argue that what keeps the good people from earning higher multiples is that architecture and vision don't matter in a lot of cases. Companies that innovate less have less need for development characterized by rapid innovation. Systems get developed by spec and implemented by indifferent teams. You budget for the features you want, not the flexibility you need. Innovation matters more to smaller companies, but even there non-technical individuals rarely see the architecture through the interface. Flexibility becomes conspicuous mostly by its absence, as development gets "over budget and behind schedule everywhere".