> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...
Ignorance of why something exists is not a good enough reason to destroy it.
Ignorance of why something exists is not a good enough reason to destroy it.
This doesn't apply to capitalisation, but generally especially in computing if there's something that looks useless you should remove it. If it breaks the fault lies with whomever left something useless there without a note to explain it.
The current project I'm working on has about 3 copies of every component because nobody bothers to clear up after themselves - dead code isn't doing any harm and it's better to leave it in case it's needed right?
Well sure, if you want me to work about 3x slower than I otherwise could. Not an exaggeration.
The client won’t care, it’s your company who broke their system.
In some cases the fact that an object survived for so long might make it unique and worth study, but a million little (usually unenforced) regulations left around like so much garbage should be swept up.
In these cases you know the duplication and dead code is there because of sloppiness and Chesterton’s fence doesn’t apply.