[_vertigo]

> Code is not an asset it's a liability, and code that no one has reviewed is even more of a liability.

Code that solves problems and makes you money is by definition an asset. Whether or not the code in question does those things remains to be seen, but code is not strictly a liability or else no one would write it.

[merlincorey]

"Code is a liability. What the code does for you is an asset." as quoted from https://wiki.c2.com/?SoftwareAsLiability with Last edit December 17, 2013.

This discussion and distinction used to be well known, but I'm happy to help some people become "one of today's lucky 10,000" as quoted from https://xkcd.com/1053/ because it is indeed much more interesting than the alternative approach.

[jvanderbot]

Code requires maintenance, which grows with codebase size, minus some decay over time. (LLMs do not change this, and might actually be more sensitive to this), So increasing code size, esp with new code, implies future costs, which meets the definition of a liability on a LOC kinda-sorta-basis.

It's not right but it's not wrong either. It at least was a useful way to think about code, and we'll see if that applies in LLM era.

[sswatson]

It’s well known and also wrong.

Delta’s airplanes also require a great deal of maintenance, and I’m sure they strive to have no more than are necessary for their objectives. But if you talk to one of Delta’s accountants, they will be happy to disabuse you of the notion that the planes are entered in the books as a liability.

[tom_m]

Not a very valuable one. Never had been. That's the funny part. So many people want software but then don't know what to do once they have it.