> A worse problem is when you have that much code, but fewer people. Too few people for there to be someone who understands each part, and the original authors are long gone.
Maybe.
I spent most of my career at a small mom and pop shop where we had single-digit MLOC spanning 20-25 years but only 15-20 engineers working at any given time. This wasn't a problem, though, because turn-over was extremely low (the range in engineer count was mostly due to internships), so many of the original code owners were still around, and we spent some effort to spread out code ownership such that virtually all parts were well understood by at least 2 people at any given moment.
If anything, I rather shudder at the thought of working somewhere that only has ~5M lines of code split up amongst 100 (and especially 1000) engineers over a span of 10 years. I can't imagine producing only 5-50 KLOC over that time, even despite often engaging in behind-the-scenes competition with colleagues over who could produce pull requests with the least (and especially negative) net LOC.
> Your resume has none of the current buzzwords.
That's one of my bigger pet peeves about software development, actually.
While you probably didn't mean it this way, over the years, I encountered a number of people who'd consistently attempt to insert fad technologies for the sake of doing so, rather than because they actually provided any kind of concrete benefit. Quite the contrary: they often complicated code without any benefit whatsoever. My more experienced colleagues snidely referred to it as resume-driven development.
I can't hate people doing this too much, though, because our industry incentivizes job hopping.