2 ms·
I suppose it depends on how you define “architecture”. I usually take it to mean something along the lines of the properties of a software design that are diffi
by Chris_Newton 12y ago
I suppose it depends on how you define “architecture”. I usually take it to mean something along the lines of the properties of a software design that are difficult to change once determined and/or that potentially affect the entire code base and/or that are expected to last for a long time. Given some such definition, it is certainly very expensive to change architecture, and therefore relatively unlikely that you’d want to rewrite on such a sweeping scale. That still applies even if the architecture you’ve developed after a while isn’t what you’d ideally chose if you were starting over.
I don’t really see any qualitative difference from any other large (but not that large) scale rewrite, though. To me it’s still just a quantitative cost/benefit question, albeit one where the cost is very high so you probably need to have some severe obstacle to overcome before the big rewrite is justified.
- dllthomas 12y agoTo my mind architecture is more "organizational decisions that affect lots of code". There is substantial overlap with your definition, but they disagree at the margins, and that's probably the root of our disagreement upthread.