4 ms·
I mostly agree with your take. To jest, the other side of the coin is when you have a legit and critical reason to move your stack forward, it will be way harde
by makeitdouble 5y ago
I mostly agree with your take. To jest, the other side of the coin is when you have a legit and critical reason to move your stack forward, it will be way harder than if you moved along with the times. The same way moving from a Solaris system from 6 decades ago comes with heavier costs and is risquier than from some old Redhat.
For the bank example, if you’re given another system to sync with and you’re still full COBOL, I’d assume it’s just a whole world of pain for years and years. Meanwhile the other banks move forward and integrate newer systems way faster and in more secure ways than you do, directly affecting your business.
- cudgy 5y agoHighly unlikely they will integrate newer systems in more secure ways using a new, unfamiliar language. In fact, many of the new platforms are becoming more of a black box that developers are unable to fix or understand when they need to fix or even recognize critical faults. Big bang rewrites are dangerous, gradual migration is a better plan for larger systems.
- makeitdouble 5y ago> Big bang rewrites are dangerous, gradual migration is a better plan for larger systems. I think we're on the same page. Yes, it needs to be gradual, and devs need to become familiar with new languages, which is why I am proponent of slowly "modernize" old stacks even if there is no immediate need to do it.