This is a shortsighted way of seeing things. The first issue, though surface-level, is using LOC as a measurement. If Company A’s million lines of code are cleaner, clearer, and better-documented than Company B’s 100k lines, then in that case Company A would be better off. What I’m getting at is that the author means to talk about complexity, and is using lines of code as rough measurement for complexity. Code itself is not debt, the complexity engendered by code is.
Code is an asset. It is the product of software companies. Having more assets certainly increases complexity, but this is almost definitionally true. Imagine saying “the US interstate highway system is debt, because it’s complex and difficult to maintain.” The premise is true, but the conclusion is such a one-dimensional way of seeing things.
The AI stuff aside, in light of the above, what is the author’s thesis here? “For the same code, all else being equal, it’s better to have less complexity than more complexity”? Sure, true, but that’s a pretty easy and obvious point.
It seems this entire article could have been profitably boiled down to “make sure your AI coding tools aren’t adding unnecessary complexity to your finished code.”
replies(9):