3 ms·
Looking at Sabre's own timeline, I cringe at what I suspect the codebase must look like. From what I read between the lines here, it looks like neither a carefu
by mjn 14y ago
Looking at Sabre's own timeline, I cringe at what I suspect the codebase must look like. From what I read between the lines here, it looks like neither a carefully maintained legacy system, nor a proper rewrite at any point along the way, but more like 50 years of things bolted onto each other: http://www.sabre.com/home/about/sabre_history http://www.sabre.com/home/about/sabre_history
- nessus42 14y agoI've been told that various companies have tried to rewrite Sabre on a number of occasions and always failed.
- clueless123 14y agoThere are other systems that work fine. Sabres real competive advantage is the existing customer base.
- rbanffy 14y agoI have the utmost respect for systems that have been running for decades without major rewrites, but having said that, I imagine there is a rock-solid core that has, literally, withstood the test of time, surrounded by semi-compatible systems that accreted around it since the mid-80's, with most current systems only touching this peripheral mass rather than the core services. I've had contact with many systems that have their cores running on IBM mainframes with peripheral systems running on .NET. I fear those.
- ams6110 14y agoTransaction processing on IBM mainframes is typically very robust. It's what they were built to do.