> The main problem with the code, he said, is it hasn't been properly maintained over the years. Maybe this is because it was being maintained by a single unde

> The main problem with the code, he said, is it hasn't been properly maintained over the years. Maybe this is because it was being maintained by a single underfunded developer. I'm not sure how the fact that we're now funding that programmer enough that he can hire a second developer (as was his stated intent) that this brings up questions of whether the money is well spent. Ars Technica? More like Talking-out-their-arse Technica. Non-technical people writing about code critiques they can only understand second-hand is pretty much worthless.