> the code is usually not particularly shit I'm sorry, but yes, it usually is. I've been in this business for over 25 years, and I'm one of the few people that actually enjoys the challenge of dealing with legacy code. But most of the code I've seen is shit. The answer to the question "could it have been done better" is usually "yes, if it had been done by someone who understood the basic principles of the paradigm t…
Is code that was written on time and on budget - but has a few hacks in it shit?
Is code that is beautiful and easily maintainable, but was £1m and six months over budget not shit?