On Mon, Dec 25, 2023 at 11:22:40AM -0600, Leo Izen wrote:
> On 12/21/23 21:32, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > 
> > Can you think of a way to add some lines of code to this that makes it more maintainable ?
> > 
> > if yes, then i think you proofed that adding code can reduce maintaince burden
> > 
> > thx
> > 
> 
> This is clearly not the point here. The point is that an in-house module has
> to be maintained, and removing that module removes the maintenance burden.
> An international obfuscated C contest entry isn't really on-topic.

You snipped the whole discussion this was a reply to and argue in a different
context. The claim was:

> > > [...] , but every line of code
> > > carries with it a non-zero maintenance burden

And the text you replied to was part of sketching a proof that the
claim was false.

If you make a different claim, yes, you need a different proof.

So what is the new claim ?
"The point is that an in-house module has
 to be maintained, and removing that module removes the maintenance burden."

This is true, IF you ignore that "removing that module" has lead to loss of
developers, should lead to loss of users and also a higher burden on the
end user, who then may have to compile various external dependancies
and maintain these with security updates. OR maybe the end user would
have to choose between 2 forks depending in what feature she wants.

If one, for sake of argument would say the removial of any module would
be good, then the optimum is 0 modules.
Thats clearly not optimal so that would be abusrd

So we know removial cannot always be optimal. That also means it must be
a good thing sometimes to have what you call additional "maintenance burden"

thx

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

it is not once nor twice but times without number that the same ideas make
their appearance in the world. -- Aristotle