3 ms·
That's also what struck me as odd, but having maintained legacy systems for a long time I can see why it's sometimes preferable to use a proven if inelegant wo
by Roritharr 6y ago
That's also what struck me as odd, but having maintained legacy systems for a long time I can see why it's sometimes preferable to use a proven if inelegant workaround than going in and try to fix the actual defect, especially if you have limited debugging options.
- dogma1138 6y agoAnalogies to IT and development aren’t that appropriate here tbh. This isn’t a legacy system, if you want to keep the IT analogy this would be failing over to a different system or replacing an existing solution that doesn’t work with a competitive alternative rather than fixing all your bugs.
- Roritharr 6y agoThis wasn't meant very serious, i'm sorry I couldn't indicate that better. I'm in no way,shape or form qualified to chime in on this topic.
- belorn 6y agoIt actually follow a common pattern in evolution. Doing big changes are hard, difficult and risky. Tinkering and doing small changes over time works for most things and any legacy system, as long they are not directly harmful, can remain as a byproduct. There is even a word for it in biology called spandrel.