3 ms·
I don't understand what you mean by "original book". The comment I was replying to was referring to Joel Spolsky's blog post, which does not talk about IBM main
by jsnell 6y ago
I don't understand what you mean by "original book". The comment I was replying to was referring to Joel Spolsky's blog post, which does not talk about IBM mainframes. It also does not merely claim that rewrites are just painful. It ways they are the "single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make".
The counterexample is thus not rewrites that were painless. It's rewrites that were strategic successes, which clearly Windows and Mac OS were. They are, after all, the foundation of two of the world's most successful companies.
- rswail 6y agoWindows is not the same as Mac OS. Microsoft was a software company. Other than accessories like keyboards and mice, they sold an OS to OEMs and applications that ran on the OS. They suffered through Windows NT as a transition and the Vista debacle. Without their monopoly market, those could have ended the company. Apple was a hardware company. Other than MacOS and a few applications, they sold hardware that ran that OS. Their focus was on selling more hardware. Windows had to maintain compatibility because the OS is the base, there isn't anything lower down. If they lost compatibility, then the argument for running Windows was reduced. MacOS had to enable the new features of Apple's hardware. If it didn't, then there would be no demand for the new hardware. So the transition of MacOS from M68K to PPC to x86 to M1 is necessary to enable the hardware to advance. To Apple, it's a cost of introducing more advanced hardware features.
- tome 6y ago> I don't understand what you mean by "original book" The Mythical Man Month.