"""But what's your point? successful project so they must have good codebase or something?"""
I never implied that "because they are successful, they must have a good codebase". I actually made a different point, essentially asking in return:
What's a "good code base"?
Wordpress's, for example, is good at what it does, not in some idealistic theoretical way. Not only it resulted in a successful product (actually two: wordpress + wordpress.com), but it also has been proven stable (heard often of WP crashing mysteriously for any other reason that too much load and no caching which is totally reasonable?) and flexible to build upon (wordpress constantly adds features to its core and tons of developers add third-party add-ons).
I'd argue that "good" code base = flexible, extensible, successful, liked by IT'S developers. WP has had all of those. So, for THEIR PURPOSES and to THEIR DEVS, it is a good codebase.
On the other hand you implied that FB, WP, Wiki's code is bad. I tried to show that WP's at least is far from bad by MANY metrics. What are your metrics? Besides, say, proof by rigorous handwaving?
As for the FB presentation, he never says despise or sucks, as you mention. It's a classic presentation of some trade-offs. You'd have a selection of those even if you coded in Haskell or whatever.
I never implied that "because they are successful, they must have a good codebase". I actually made a different point, essentially asking in return:
What's a "good code base"?
Wordpress's, for example, is good at what it does, not in some idealistic theoretical way. Not only it resulted in a successful product (actually two: wordpress + wordpress.com), but it also has been proven stable (heard often of WP crashing mysteriously for any other reason that too much load and no caching which is totally reasonable?) and flexible to build upon (wordpress constantly adds features to its core and tons of developers add third-party add-ons).
I'd argue that "good" code base = flexible, extensible, successful, liked by IT'S developers. WP has had all of those. So, for THEIR PURPOSES and to THEIR DEVS, it is a good codebase.
On the other hand you implied that FB, WP, Wiki's code is bad. I tried to show that WP's at least is far from bad by MANY metrics. What are your metrics? Besides, say, proof by rigorous handwaving?
As for the FB presentation, he never says despise or sucks, as you mention. It's a classic presentation of some trade-offs. You'd have a selection of those even if you coded in Haskell or whatever.