[osth]

"If code doesn't receive constant love, it turns to shit."

But it sounds like this code was receiving "love", only the "love" was coming from run-of-the-mill "just get it to work" C++ programmers.

I guess we need context to understand Fitzpatrick's statement. Perhaps he just means code at Google.

Are there any examples of code that has survived for many years without "constant love"? Netcat has not received "constant love" over the years. It hasn't turned to shit. Neither has the original awk. I can think of many other examples. These programs have proven to need very little maintenance.

I posit that simple programs that are well written do not need "constant love". They only need love when there's a bug. And there are plenty of programs that are in constant use where no bug has been discovered for many years. The bugs were vetted and fixed early on, decades ago.

Hence I disagree with Fitzpatrick.