Reading back, yeah I can see the alternative interpretation of what I wrote, that's fair
> Perhaps you meant "correct code", and not necessarily "old" or "stable" code.
That sounds like a circular statement to me: if the code is correct, it can't have bugs, because bugs are when it does something wrong. Calling it stable seems fair to me, idk which would be most precise and bestest choice of words but that hopefully conveys the concept of some software product that hasn't majorly changed but also isn't just abandoned (say, a part of Firefox that hasn't been rewritten in forever, but Mozilla continues to apply any fixes to it when bugs are reported), for which I think the statement holds
> The quoted observation depends on proactive maintenance.
Yeah, that's the issue with my original wording of "old", where I can totally see the other interpretation coming to mind first. It's not that people who lived longer ago wrote better code :p. Quite the opposite: the effect of awareness increases over the decades is very visible in my work as security tester
> Perhaps you meant "correct code", and not necessarily "old" or "stable" code.
That sounds like a circular statement to me: if the code is correct, it can't have bugs, because bugs are when it does something wrong. Calling it stable seems fair to me, idk which would be most precise and bestest choice of words but that hopefully conveys the concept of some software product that hasn't majorly changed but also isn't just abandoned (say, a part of Firefox that hasn't been rewritten in forever, but Mozilla continues to apply any fixes to it when bugs are reported), for which I think the statement holds
> The quoted observation depends on proactive maintenance.
Yeah, that's the issue with my original wording of "old", where I can totally see the other interpretation coming to mind first. It's not that people who lived longer ago wrote better code :p. Quite the opposite: the effect of awareness increases over the decades is very visible in my work as security tester