Linked by snydeq on Sun 11th Dec 2011 01:35 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 499940
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: "Better" vs. Better
by ilovebeer on Tue 13th Dec 2011 10:30
in reply to "RE[5]: "Better" vs. Better"
If you have something working, it is ridiculous to do a full rewrite. The only time I can see it making sense if the current platform is going to be depreciated, or fundamental core changes need to be made.
I'm not talking about doing rewrites when there's no need for it. When you have poorly designed software that's in a constant state of maintenance, you can reach a point where maintaining it and dealing with the poor design is no longer the best option -- when too much time and too many resources are being committed just to keep it working. In these cases a proper rewrite can easily be the best solution if the end result is relieving the time & resources being spent.
The people who are saying that a rewrite is never a good choice and believe that there are never any circumstances which call for it, are completely nuts. They're either not coders, not good coders, never had to deal with resource management, or aren't good at it.
RE[7]: "Better" vs. Better
by JAlexoid on Tue 13th Dec 2011 17:40
in reply to "RE[6]: "Better" vs. Better"
I have a good example of a well written application that requires a total rewrite - lack of documentation leads to weird things happening in production.
In addition, rewrite will easily remove 80% of code from custom domain. It is not so much a rewrite, as it is distilling the application to the business features and letting the custom code be replaced by COTS or opensource code.
RE[7]: "Better" vs. Better
by lucas_maximus on Tue 13th Dec 2011 18:18
in reply to "RE[6]: "Better" vs. Better"
When you have poorly designed software that's in a constant state of maintenance, you can reach a point where maintaining it and dealing with the poor design is no longer the best option[q]
Well I think that comes under core design changes ... such as what happened with Win9x vs WinNT.
[q]The people who are saying that a rewrite is never a good choice and believe that there are never any circumstances which call for it, are completely nuts. They're either not coders, not good coders, never had to deal with resource management, or aren't good at it
Well I think that comes under core design changes ... such as what happened with Win9x vs WinNT.
[q]The people who are saying that a rewrite is never a good choice and believe that there are never any circumstances which call for it, are completely nuts. They're either not coders, not good coders, never had to deal with resource management, or aren't good at it
I not saying "NEVER EVER EVER" rewrite ... but in the vast number of cases I think it is better just to get the original requirements (if any) or map the behaviours and rewrite that particular module (i.e. Method in OOP) from scratch.





Member since:
2009-08-18
If you have something working, it is ridiculous to do a full rewrite. The only time I can see it making sense if the current platform is going to be depreciated, or fundamental core changes need to be made.
Re-factoring and rewriting modules is fine. Slowly changing the architecture is okay as well. It is pretty easy to do this after a few iterations.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean that rewriting a working application is a good idea because it might be better in the future.
Many of the weird logic the applications have are there for very good reasons.