> I heard a recent conference talk where it was referenced as “Revenue Generating Code”, rather than “Legacy Code”.
The two categories overlap, but not all code generating revenue fits in the traditional scope of “Legacy Code” and not all “Legacy Code” is generating revenue.
> I found it be a pretty accurate summation that gives some perspective from the other side.
It’s not a perfect overlap. I agree with you there. My personal experience has led me to believe that “Revenue Generating Code” is the most common variety of technical debt.
Technical debt that does not generate revenue in any way is often far easier to replace/refactor.
I look at legacy code like this:
- Could we remove this from the product?
- Could we replace this part of the product with a totally new system?
- Are we OK with potentially introducing subtle bugs in this code as we work through refactoring it.
If the answer to the above questions are “No”, it’s likely revenue generating code (or part of some compliance process).
In this case the “other side” is non-technical stakeholders who don’t inherently understand the importance of resolving technical debt.
The two categories overlap, but not all code generating revenue fits in the traditional scope of “Legacy Code” and not all “Legacy Code” is generating revenue.
> I found it be a pretty accurate summation that gives some perspective from the other side.
What “other side” are you referring to?