3 ms·
Maintaining old stuff is way more sensible than rewriting everything every few years. Companies tend to measure costs of maintenance vs rewrite. Edit: there's
by goodpoint 3y ago
Maintaining old stuff is way more sensible than rewriting everything every few years. Companies tend to measure costs of maintenance vs rewrite.
Edit: there's always a tradeoff but I wrote "every few years".
Cobol is an odd example. Many banks have been going back to Cobol because they found it less expensive than the alternatives and are there is an influx of new graduates learning the language right now.
- Cthulhu_ 3y agoUp to a point, there's always a tradeoff and a turnover point; at the moment the old Cobol mainframes are one of those; the tradeoff is that there's a lot of institutional knowledge and essential processes in that code, but on the other it's harder to find competend staff that can - and want - to work with it.
- WJW 3y agoSensible for who? Companies may try to estimate costs of maintenance vs rewrite, but individuals need to make the final call and for them the benefits usually go the other way. Maintaining some existing project is going to get you nothing if you do it right and will bring you problems if it breaks despite your best efforts. Rewriting an existing system in a new tech stack counts as exciting innovative work for promotion purposes, or at least prepares your CV for your next job hop. With salary bumps between levels being what they are in software, I'm not surprised people choose the more lucrative option.
- datavirtue 3y agoA stack that goes down all the time is a ripe opportunity for career advancement, if you are in to that. Hell, I have seen the creators of the problems get endlessly promoted for constantly solving problems they created. Small or medium company, critical systems going down a lot...give me that shit. Easy money and reputation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]