feat: ✨ principle about software as asset, code as liability

[lwjohnst86]

Description

I've been meaning to add this to the design for a while.

This PR needs an in-depth review.

[joelostblom]

I agree with this in general, but I think it would be important to also emphasize that we care about our ability to understand the code. So we want to write as little code as possible while preserving function and comprehension. Otherwise I think it can come across that we sacrifice readability for less code (which is often the case in the wild). Maybe something like this:

Suggested change

	What this means is, we want to produce as little code as possible to effectively
	produce workable software. By viewing and treating code for what it is, as a
	liability, we can be more mindful of the code that we do write. We can consider
	questions like: Is this enough to code to produce the software? Can we design
	the software in a way that requires less code? Is a particular feature or change
	really necessary while still maintaining the software's value?
	What this means is, we want to write as little code as possible while still preserving software functionality and code readability.
	By viewing and treating code as a
	liability, we can be more mindful of the code that we do write. We can consider
	questions like: Is this enough to code to produce the software? Can we design
	the software in a way that requires less code without sacrificing readability?
	Is a particular feature or change really necessary?

[signekb]

Nice points 👌 Some suggestions:

[signekb]

Suggested change

	Software is the set of actions that produce a given output from a set of inputs.
	This is an asset, as it is something that provides value, to us and to
	(potentially) others. Assets are things that we want to create and we want more
	of.
	Software is the set of actions that produce a given output from a set of inputs.
	This is an asset, as it is something that provides value, to us and
	our users. Therefore, software is something we want to create and create more of.

Maybe? Just so the last sentence feels more conclusive and directly related to the header.

[signekb]

Suggested change

	Computer code is the set of instructions that implements that set of actions in
	the software. We need code in order to produce the software asset. But, code
	Computer code is the set of instructions that implements the set of actions that constitutes
	the software. We need code in order to produce the software asset. But, code

[signekb]

Suggested change

	also means bugs, it means maintenance, and it can be a source of security
	also means potential bugs, it means maintenance, and it can be a source of security

[signekb]

Suggested change

	want less of that. The code itself is a liability.
	want less of that. Therefore, code itself is a liability.

[signekb]

Suggested change

	What this means is, we want to produce as little code as possible to effectively
	As a result, we want to produce as little code as possible to effectively

[signekb]

Suggested change

	questions like: Is this enough to code to produce the software? Can we design
	questions like: Is this enough code to produce the software? Can we design

[signekb]

One thing about this is that it can sound like we would always prefer less lines of code, which I'm pretty sure is not the intention. So, maybe add that here; that we value code that is explicit and simple (less complex as John Ousterhout would say) over shorter code.