Code that enables a company to generate revenue is an asset.
Code is an asset.
Code that can be sold for more than it cost to generate is an asset.
Code that enables a company to generate revenue is an asset.
Code is an asset.
Code that can be sold for more than it cost to generate is an asset.
I don't think most engineers really disagree with this. Saying code is a liability is technically incorrect but pithy shorthand to communicate that it comes with the associated baggage of maintenance, obligation, and risk; these things suck up money the same way a liability does. Tech debt is also not real debt. It's a figure of speech.
The asset has inherent liabilities. A codebase can be reasoned about extremely similarly
Also note that even when a line of code is generating revenue, it never stops being a liability in almost every sense of the word. Testing it still costs money and time, understanding it costs cognitive power, having it in the context of your LLM coding agent costs tokens, and that's assuming it's a good line of code. If it's bad code (badly named, badly placed, a logic chain that works but has hidden flaws), the costs increase and reverberate throughout the codebase (and your AI coding sessions).
Code is a liability - yes with an and / no with a but.
I’m sure volumes have been written amount, and there’s roughly an infinite amount of nuance to be talked about over a few drinks and a smoke.
Your asset might generate $10k a month in revenue, but at the same time may have a high chance of needing a $100k investment in upgrades and repairs to remain productive.