Linked by snydeq on Sun 11th Dec 2011 01:35 UTC
General Development Fatal Exception's Neil McAllister writes in favor of new programming languages given the difficulty of upgrading existing, popular languages. 'Whenever a new programming language is announced, a certain segment of the developer population always rolls its eyes and groans that we have quite enough to choose from already,' McAllister writes. 'But once a language reaches a certain tipping point of popularity, overhauling it to include support for new features, paradigms, and patterns is easier said than done.' PHP 6, Perl 6, Python 3, ECMAScript 4 -- 'the lesson from all of these examples is clear: Programming languages move slowly, and the more popular a language is, the slower it moves. It is far, far easier to create a new language from whole cloth than it is to convince the existing user base of a popular language to accept radical changes.'
Thread beginning with comment 499803
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "Better" vs. Better
by lucas_maximus on Sun 11th Dec 2011 11:54 UTC in reply to ""Better" vs. Better"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Totally agree, You should never do a rewrite on a piece of software because you instantly lose years worth of effort.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: "Better" vs. Better
by ilovebeer on Sun 11th Dec 2011 17:54 in reply to "RE: "Better" vs. Better"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Totally agree, You should never do a rewrite on a piece of software because you instantly lose years worth of effort.

If all those years of effort took the software in the wrong direction and wound up crippling it more than helping it for future expansion, then yes, a complete rewrite is certainly the better option.

There's one constant that you should always consider as much as possible -- progression. If you want your language to survive the test of time, it not only needs to be good, it needs to be expandable/extendable. That is a key element in it's basic design. If you ignore it, you will pay the price later.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: "Better" vs. Better
by Delgarde on Sun 11th Dec 2011 21:51 in reply to "RE[2]: "Better" vs. Better"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

"Totally agree, You should never do a rewrite on a piece of software because you instantly lose years worth of effort.

If all those years of effort took the software in the wrong direction and wound up crippling it more than helping it for future expansion, then yes, a complete rewrite is certainly the better option.
"


Even so, rewrites kill companies. No matter how painful it is to stick with the existing version, that's the version that's paying the bills.

It's all very well assigning developers to do the complete rewrite that in five years time will make everything better. But if you're spending all the effort on the rewrite instead of on keeping the old product going, well... you probably won't still be around in five years time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: "Better" vs. Better
by lucas_maximus on Mon 12th Dec 2011 11:02 in reply to "RE[2]: "Better" vs. Better"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I worked at one company where they decided they were going to rewrite the old product from scratch. 1 year later they had a product that they couldn't sell to anyone, while the old product with all of it problems the clients still wanted.

The old product is still going and has been bought by new customers and is still paying the bills. If the amount of effort for the rewrite had been spent refactoring the product ... It would probably would have none of the performance problems it currently has.

The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code has been used. It has been tested. Lots of bugs have been found, and they've been fixed. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire, baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of gross if it's not made out of all new material?

Back to that two page function. Yes, I know, it's just a simple function to display a window, but it has grown little hairs and stuff on it and nobody knows why. Well, I'll tell you why: those are bug fixes. One of them fixes that bug that Nancy had when she tried to install the thing on a computer that didn't have Internet Explorer. Another one fixes that bug that occurs in low memory conditions. Another one fixes that bug that occurred when the file is on a floppy disk and the user yanks out the disk in the middle. That LoadLibrary call is ugly but it makes the code work on old versions of Windows 95.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Edited 2011-12-12 11:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2