Hacker News Reader

You may end up unable to remove features that are now only used because they provide a workaround to the damage you did earlier.

View on HN

This may still be a win if the removed feature was one that made future changes difficult. The code bade I spend a lot of time working on has some old/weird features that it seems exist only to be tested but nobody is using them.

But when asking the users you rarely get told to go ahead with removal.

This is a false dichotomy. If you're unsure of usage you could just instrument your code to log method calls and use that analysis to inform what maybe should be removed, but only if you first understand why.

This is client software. I am not getting any logs.

Once somebody screams, you can dig why and fix the underlying problem.

I imagine that none of the people criticizing the idea worked for long on any large organization.

> I imagine that none of the people criticizing the idea worked for long on any large organization.

Or what they worked on was too important for this risk to be taken. In my case, people could have literally screamed.

Yes, if it's really important, you don't remove it without a lot of digging. That's the the OP posted two contradictory principles.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com