Code was malleable only to a developer with great code comprehension. In my experience, this was actually very rare. I think part of the reason is, you don't get any recognition for modifying a few lines of someone else's code compared to "I created this new library/app to solve this problem for our org!".

▲

beej71 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Code was malleable only to a developer with great code comprehension

This used to be what being a dev was, if I recall. It's been a few years.

▲

croon 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, but it was certainly a difference between those projects you authored and those you inherited, at least in time-to-productiveness.

▲

dehugger 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The ability to understand and maintain inherited projects is more valuable than the ability to create new greenfield projects.

	▲	antihipocrat 29 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In terms of value as an income, then for a consultant this is most likely true - for staff working in a megacorp not so much.
	▲	skydhash 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And often, it's not the code that is the issue. You understand the code perfectly fine and can edit it easily. The main issue is always finding out the "why" so you do not remove any Chesterton's fence while coding for a new change request.

▲

ern 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think we romanticise the old days of coding now that agents are doing it.

Regarding the average developer as an imbecile was a cottage industry from Djikstra to FizzBuzz.

▲

jacquesm an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The big trick always was to limit your scope. If you can't do that or if your tooling doesn't help you with that then very quickly you will run into the limits of what you can still keep in your head.