3 ms·

>The end product has less functionality, but at least you didn't have to do something actually hard like learn Haskell and work with Someone Else's Code. But d

>The end product has less functionality, but at least you didn't have to do something actually hard like learn Haskell and work with Someone Else's Code. But did the business need all of that functionality? Rewriting a subset of an application that is far more maintainable and cost effective in the long run can be a huge win. I am currently rebuilding an application full of intractable bugs and proprietary DSLs that was implemented in Salesforce with lots of bells and whistles that nobody wants or needs to be a simple Golang/Mysql app hosted on AWS. Yes, it is a tiny subset of the current functionality. But it solves the business case and will save millions of dollars per year in Salesforce fees while simultaneously making the user experience an order of magnitude simpler and allowing faster onboarding. Engineers allowed to run free can often times spend an inordinate amount of time building things out that no one really asked for. Your Haskell backend was probably a thing of pure beauty from a programmers point of view. But an expensive liability to the business.

whateveracct 5y ago
> But did the business need all of that functionality? Rewriting a subset of an application that is far more maintainable and cost effective in the long run can be a huge win. It was needed enough that the rewrite (which was slow) had to delay release and the legacy software had to be kept alive well past its sunset date (and plenty of people jetted by then.) Because the business had to keep the lights on! The missing functionality at least was said to be missed by the business folks who made use of it. "If only we had feature X" definitely was said. There wasn't anything too beautiful about the Haskell. It was mostly systems work. But incrementally evolving and improving would've definitely be cheaper long term than a rewrite .. but it does require people to learn Haskell, which seems to be a nonstarter for many. If people don't wanna, they don't wanna.

whateveracct 5y ago

> But did the business need all of that functionality? Rewriting a subset of an application that is far more maintainable and cost effective in the long run can be a huge win. It was needed enough that the rewrite (which was slow) had to delay release and the legacy software had to be kept alive well past its sunset date (and plenty of people jetted by then.) Because the business had to keep the lights on! The missing functionality at least was said to be missed by the business folks who made use of it. "If only we had feature X" definitely was said. There wasn't anything too beautiful about the Haskell. It was mostly systems work. But incrementally evolving and improving would've definitely be cheaper long term than a rewrite .. but it does require people to learn Haskell, which seems to be a nonstarter for many. If people don't wanna, they don't wanna.