2 ms·
Every time someone has told me that "it sounds nice to do it incrementally but that just won't work for us" it's because either they (a) lack expertise they wou
by kqr 4y ago
Every time someone has told me that "it sounds nice to do it incrementally but that just won't work for us" it's because either they (a) lack expertise they would need, or (b) haven't really tried for political reasons.
Maybe it's actually true in your specific case, and I'm curious what makes your case different, if you're at liberty to share!
- kerblang 4y agoSorry for the extraordinarily late reply, but: I'm only peripherally involved in this application, but I think it's in part because of hideously bad architecture from the ground up. I know it was written in Cold Fusion, for one thing, which has graduated to the ever-popular Tremendously Expensive Licensing Era, and has major performance and database problems. But yes, politically: There is no desire to make it a "migration" type of problem; transitioning users isn't important from the business perspective. That might be hard to believe, but I think the argument is that dragging the old product through its own muck is a lot slower than building a new product that brings in new business. So, who am I to argue with that? Are we saying, no, no, if you have an old product you must migrate even when the business says you don't need to?