The longer I work on the Line Impact algorithm, the higher I want to make the multiplier for truly deleted [1] code. I’m curious if any managers, especially CTOs, have cultivated an intuition for how much more valuable it is to delete old code than it is to add new code? I think legacy deleted lines might be about 2x as valuable as new lines.
The way that I experience deleted code being more valuable: as a developer, the less concepts I have to think about, the faster I can modify the system without creating redundancy or overlap.
The default end state for a repo seems akin to the default end state for the sun: expansion in all directions as time passes. Deleted code might be an antidote? Even if, in practice, I’ve never worked in a real world project that deletes a quarter as much code as it adds. All the more reason it seems to create an incentive to push things in the other direction.
I’m sure there must be some who disagree w/ deleted code being twice as valuable as added code? From whence does your intuition arise?
[1] As distinct from churned code and moved code, which are treated as “deletes” by classic diff viewers but are incidental to progress.