Den 22/06/10 18.38, James Perkins skrev:
I kind of see the backwards compatibility as a blessing and a curse. It's
great things work, but it also leads to code that never really gets looked
because it just works. I've seen code out there just about as old as I am. A
lot of the code I end up having to working was written in the 80's and 90's.
Joel Spolsky puts it much better than I can:
" The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code
has been /used/. It has been /tested/. /Lots/ of bugs have been found,
and they've been /fixed/. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't
acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire,
baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just
sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of
gross if it's not made out of /all new material/?" --
I understand that you mean "change code" when you say "look at code".
That means you have to test and debug your changes, and document them
which is actually quite a bit of work if you fiddle with critical stuff.
It is ok to do all that work if you HAVE to, but why do it otherwise?
 more or less :) In any case you can leave it more documented than
you found it.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2022 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.