4 ms·
> "Iterating on a architecture is harder than starting one from scratch." Any reason to believe this is generally true? This seems like the same fallacy that l
by spijdar 6y ago
> "Iterating on a architecture is harder than starting one from scratch."
Any reason to believe this is generally true? This seems like the same fallacy that leads to people believing that scrapping all the code and starting from scratch will make a project better, and typically seems to end in more-bugs and fewer-features with delays in release.
It can be true when the old code/design is just incredibly bad and needs to be tossed, but I don't think it's true in general.
- wmil 6y agoIt's true if you read it as "breaking backwards compatibility is easier". Intel x86 chips would have had things like out of order execution many years earlier if they didn't need to be compatible with old software. Some people have said that a lot of the 737 Max problems are due to Boeing execs insisting on keeping the same airframe. I admit that isn't quite what the parent said, but realistically any architecture "from scratch" is going to reuse a lot of stuff from existing designs that works well.
- slx26 6y agoWhen the iterations on a given project or architecture start hitting diminishing returns, trying new things from scratch is often a good strategy. I assume the commenter meant the quote for this context, but failed to make it explicit.
- socialdemocrat 6y agoScrapping the code and starting from scratch is often better than iteration. There are some famous examples out there which try to give the impression that this is a terrible idea but often one just gets half the story. The devil is in the details. It is a question of execution and need. Who is doing it etc. It is easier for a team that made the original system to make a better rewrite because they understand past mistakes better. And entirely new team may simply replicate mistakes of the past.