3 ms·

The second-to-last post[0] talks about how they decided to migrate their stack from Ruby on Rails to Haskell, and are now in the seventh (!) year of that migrat

The second-to-last post[0] talks about how they decided to migrate their stack from Ruby on Rails to Haskell, and are now in the seventh (!) year of that migration. [0] https://exploring-better-ways.bellroy.com/designing-for-the-different-stages-of-a-systems-life.html https://exploring-better-ways.bellroy.com/designing-for-the-...

oncallthrow 1y ago
Seems like an insane choice to me
- bobnamob 1y ago
  They're based in Collingwood, any Australian would tell you that an n year Haskel rewrite is the most normal thing about them
  - rswail 1y ago
    Speaking as someone from there (Collingwood), we're proudly weird.
    - pklausler 1y ago
      Hello from Portland, Oregon!
- cosmic_quanta 1y ago
  I'd love to hear more about why you think this is insane.
internet_points 1y ago
My first thought was: does that mean they've been actively migrating for seven years, or just "we migrated the most important stuff and can't see any strong business reasons to move some of these microservices that do their job just fine"? But reading the post, it seems the main reason is they no longer understand all the Ruby code!
- bobbylarrybobby 1y ago
  I thought this couldn't be correct, but... nope: > We adopted a pragmatic approach: maintain the Ruby code but only port functionality to Haskell when we could add meaningful value in the process. This meant our Ruby codebase gradually became legacy code, maintained but not actively developed. This transition — which we expected to take a couple of years — has now stretched into its seventh year. > > Here’s where the Clean Architecture approach began to work against us. As we hired more Haskell-focused developers and our institutional knowledge of Ruby faded, those carefully crafted abstraction layers became archaeological puzzles. Reverse-engineering what a piece of code actually did — especially complex, multi-step operations with side effects — became a nightmare.

oncallthrow 1y ago

Seems like an insane choice to me

bobnamob 1y ago
They're based in Collingwood, any Australian would tell you that an n year Haskel rewrite is the most normal thing about them
- rswail 1y ago
  Speaking as someone from there (Collingwood), we're proudly weird.
  - pklausler 1y ago
    Hello from Portland, Oregon!
cosmic_quanta 1y ago
I'd love to hear more about why you think this is insane.

internet_points 1y ago

My first thought was: does that mean they've been actively migrating for seven years, or just "we migrated the most important stuff and can't see any strong business reasons to move some of these microservices that do their job just fine"? But reading the post, it seems the main reason is they no longer understand all the Ruby code!

bobbylarrybobby 1y ago
I thought this couldn't be correct, but... nope: > We adopted a pragmatic approach: maintain the Ruby code but only port functionality to Haskell when we could add meaningful value in the process. This meant our Ruby codebase gradually became legacy code, maintained but not actively developed. This transition — which we expected to take a couple of years — has now stretched into its seventh year. > > Here’s where the Clean Architecture approach began to work against us. As we hired more Haskell-focused developers and our institutional knowledge of Ruby faded, those carefully crafted abstraction layers became archaeological puzzles. Reverse-engineering what a piece of code actually did — especially complex, multi-step operations with side effects — became a nightmare.