2 ms·

I think this is the key. I have this big honking system that nobody really understands. We need a system to do X. please implement X is way easier than the whol

by jfoutz 13y ago

I think this is the key. I have this big honking system that nobody really understands. We need a system to do X. please implement X is way easier than the whole, rewrite a million lines problem.

zaphar 13y ago
What is also key is understanding that this is almost never the way that happens. It goes more like this: We have this big honking system that nobody really understands. We need a system that does X (where X is the list of features we think the other system does that are critical. X is subject to change as we discover other features to add and features that actually weren't necessary.) Please implement X this way. And that can easily become an exercise in extreme frustration.
otakucode 13y ago
In my experience, the reason they will not even consider "Please implement X" as an option is because they see ANY additional effort as more expensive. They figure taking the existing code and producing a new system that EXACTLY duplicates the functionality will guarantee controlled costs. They're wrong of course, but this is how it is done, at least in government contracting circles. I have literally seen developers required to get out a RULER and measure user interfaces as they appear on one screen so that they can exactly duplicate them on newer higher-dpi screens without changing the appearance or functionality whatsoever. Everyone presumes the million-line system is one which could be implemented much more simply... there are some systems, however, that need those million lines. Rewriting one of those in a new language is a whole different level of nightmare. Especially when the requirements are 'make it work like the old system' and nothing else, and the requirements for the old system are 30 years old and not even close to portraying the system as it stands currently... But hey, to avoid 'being the next healthcare.gov', political types will push anything out the door and just shoot anyone who points out problems in the back.

by jfoutz 13y ago

I think this is the key. I have this big honking system that nobody really understands. We need a system to do X. please implement X is way easier than the whole, rewrite a million lines problem.

zaphar 13y ago

What is also key is understanding that this is almost never the way that happens. It goes more like this: We have this big honking system that nobody really understands. We need a system that does X (where X is the list of features we think the other system does that are critical. X is subject to change as we discover other features to add and features that actually weren't necessary.) Please implement X this way. And that can easily become an exercise in extreme frustration.

otakucode 13y ago

In my experience, the reason they will not even consider "Please implement X" as an option is because they see ANY additional effort as more expensive. They figure taking the existing code and producing a new system that EXACTLY duplicates the functionality will guarantee controlled costs. They're wrong of course, but this is how it is done, at least in government contracting circles. I have literally seen developers required to get out a RULER and measure user interfaces as they appear on one screen so that they can exactly duplicate them on newer higher-dpi screens without changing the appearance or functionality whatsoever. Everyone presumes the million-line system is one which could be implemented much more simply... there are some systems, however, that need those million lines. Rewriting one of those in a new language is a whole different level of nightmare. Especially when the requirements are 'make it work like the old system' and nothing else, and the requirements for the old system are 30 years old and not even close to portraying the system as it stands currently... But hey, to avoid 'being the next healthcare.gov', political types will push anything out the door and just shoot anyone who points out problems in the back.