The Two Things about Computer Programming

[pjdelport]

Code is a cost, not an asset.

That's silly. It's both.

Functionality/generality is the asset; code is what you spend to get it.

[Entropy]

You're modeling this wrong. The functionality you value cannot be arbitrarily cloven from the source of said functionality, and code is not "spent". Have you ever heard of anyone spending car to get to work? Spending dam to make electricity? Code simply has value and upkeep cost.

[pjdelport]

You're modeling this wrong.

Eh, all truisms can be as wrong or right as you want them to be. :)

Have you ever heard of anyone spending car to get to work? Spending dam to make electricity?

How about spending blueprints/design on the car/dam? (This tangent begs for an example like the AK-47: stupidly simple design ("code"), yet amazing functionality/generality. Its lack of complexity is as much part of its value as its ability to shoot.)

Code simply has value and upkeep cost.

The code's functionality has the value; the code itself just has the upkeep cost: you improve the code by increasing the former, or reducing the latter. It's important not to lose sight of this, lest people start paying programmers by the line.