3 ms·

I know those: Rewrites are bad, it's harder to read the code than write, a rewrite failing Netscape and many others, whatever. I aim to share a view I know is r

I know those: Rewrites are bad, it's harder to read the code than write, a rewrite failing Netscape and many others, whatever. I aim to share a view I know is radical and controversial, that unequivocally all software needs a rewrite a decade, provided there is finances to do it.

dgfitz 2y ago
I disagree. I think rewrites are sometimes the right thing, but rarely. The Linux kernel is a good example. Should we rewrite it? No of course not. So was your point about code that hasn’t been maintained in a decade? Sure, maybe then. But I can’t square “code that hasn’t been touched in a decade” with “still in active use today”
- Aerbil313 2y ago
  The Linux kernel is the perfect example for my case. We should absolutely create a new OS to replace Linux. Just an example, and not only my opinion, rather a widespread one: There is no need for multiple mechanisms of interprocess communication, they only add to the complexity. Conway’s Law[1]: > Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. In his famous lecture [2], Casey Muratori makes the case that Conway’s Law applies over time too, meaning there is not a single organization, but multiple versions of the organization over time, and all of them end up adding more design (decisions) to the product. The best example, which he gives, is the 5 different UIs to change the sound level in Windows. Rewrites to old (10 years old as I said) software reset the age of the software to zero and very often drastically simplify both the design and the codebase. I’m not telling you to rewrite your 3 yo product. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law 2: https://youtu.be/5IUj1EZwpJY?t=1696 https://youtu.be/5IUj1EZwpJY?t=1696
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    > and very often drastically simplify both the design and the codebase. This is the major flaw in your argument. This just isn’t true.

dgfitz 2y ago

I disagree. I think rewrites are sometimes the right thing, but rarely. The Linux kernel is a good example. Should we rewrite it? No of course not. So was your point about code that hasn’t been maintained in a decade? Sure, maybe then. But I can’t square “code that hasn’t been touched in a decade” with “still in active use today”

Aerbil313 2y ago
The Linux kernel is the perfect example for my case. We should absolutely create a new OS to replace Linux. Just an example, and not only my opinion, rather a widespread one: There is no need for multiple mechanisms of interprocess communication, they only add to the complexity. Conway’s Law[1]: > Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations. In his famous lecture [2], Casey Muratori makes the case that Conway’s Law applies over time too, meaning there is not a single organization, but multiple versions of the organization over time, and all of them end up adding more design (decisions) to the product. The best example, which he gives, is the 5 different UIs to change the sound level in Windows. Rewrites to old (10 years old as I said) software reset the age of the software to zero and very often drastically simplify both the design and the codebase. I’m not telling you to rewrite your 3 yo product. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law 2: https://youtu.be/5IUj1EZwpJY?t=1696 https://youtu.be/5IUj1EZwpJY?t=1696
- dgfitz 2y ago
  > and very often drastically simplify both the design and the codebase. This is the major flaw in your argument. This just isn’t true.