>people think rewriting is a solution. It very never is. I often see this idea formulated, in this forum or in articles. >what is really broken in your legacy

>people think rewriting is a solution. It very never is. I often see this idea formulated, in this forum or in articles. >what is really broken in your legacy system. Software can be arbitrarily broken (think of only copy-pasting code from thedailywtf): http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dsb/CS373S/Images/softwaredesign.jpg http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dsb/CS373S/Images/softwaredes... I knew a legacy system where everything was broken. There were no proper data model and structures, so every computation involved multiple nested loops, making everything much slower than needed. Everything was modifiable as if it was public, so it was hard to keep things consistent. Allocation/GC and latency were through the roof, they tried to add pooling but noone could figure out where objects could be released. One of the core classes was called Banana (changed name) but actually referred to bananas or to banana trees. And the list goes on (threading, database usage, still plenty to tell). Then someone, new to both the domain and the language, stepped up to rewrite everything, which took a bit more than a month. Ten years later the core of it didn't change much, they are still building on it and it's still smooth.