2 ms·
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 bus
by 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 agoI 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.