2 typographical error
source | link

40k lines of code is pretty small, but if it's critical code, it's still a significant investment of time.

We'd all like to be working on sexy wonderful code, but the business case is always based around return. Does it cost you so much time per year, that you'd save time by putting in large fixes? Or does it work well enough that you can't justify the time?

In my experience, programmers all want to replace their predecessorspredecessors' code. It's a strong temptation (because they're all incompetent/crazy/drooling morons) but, if it's working, leave it be, and try. Try to focus on your code so that the next person to hold your job won't feel the need to re-write it.

40k lines of code is pretty small, but if it's critical code, it's still a significant investment of time.

We'd all like to be working on sexy wonderful code, but the business case is always based around return. Does it cost you so much time per year, that you'd save time by putting in large fixes? Or does it work well enough that you can't justify the time?

In my experience, programmers all want to replace their predecessors code. It's a strong temptation (because they're all incompetent/crazy/drooling morons) but, if it's working, leave it be, and try to focus on your code so that the next person to hold your job won't feel the need to re-write it.

40k lines of code is pretty small, but if it's critical code, it's still a significant investment of time.

We'd all like to be working on sexy wonderful code, but the business case is always based around return. Does it cost you so much time per year, that you'd save time by putting in large fixes? Or does it work well enough that you can't justify the time?

In my experience, programmers all want to replace their predecessors' code. It's a strong temptation (because they're all incompetent/crazy/drooling morons) but if it's working, leave it be. Try to focus on your code so that the next person to hold your job won't feel the need to re-write it.

1
source | link

40k lines of code is pretty small, but if it's critical code, it's still a significant investment of time.

We'd all like to be working on sexy wonderful code, but the business case is always based around return. Does it cost you so much time per year, that you'd save time by putting in large fixes? Or does it work well enough that you can't justify the time?

In my experience, programmers all want to replace their predecessors code. It's a strong temptation (because they're all incompetent/crazy/drooling morons) but, if it's working, leave it be, and try to focus on your code so that the next person to hold your job won't feel the need to re-write it.