Timeline for When do you rebuild an application or keep on fixing the existing one
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 17, 2014 at 11:56 | comment | added | Péter Török | @WarrenP, fully agreed, that's basically the point I was trying to make above :-) | |
| Feb 10, 2014 at 14:10 | comment | added | Warren P | Okay let me rephrase. I have read "Working Effectively With Legacy Code", and I have grappled with un UNIT testable code. Getting code "more under Test than it is today" and getting it completely "under unit test" are sometimes two different things. It is always possible to make progress towards having some testability, at a UNIT or Integration level. It is NOT always possible to survive a rewrite. | |
| Feb 6, 2014 at 23:25 | comment | added | kmote | @WarrenP, I agree with Peter: When the code contains hundreds of huge monolithic functions, highly coupled in a tangled spaghetti of undocumented connections (combined with stratified layers of unused boneyard code), creating unit tests can be more demanding than a re-write | |
| Oct 13, 2011 at 21:17 | comment | added | Péter Török | @WarrenP, no offense but it sounds like you haven't seen legacy code yet. In such code not just some, but most of the code is not unit testable. And how do you refactor without unit tests? | |
| Oct 13, 2011 at 20:52 | comment | added | Warren P | @Peter - I have no doubts that you have some code that is not unit testable. You should note those are untestable, and some day, refactor them so they are easily unit testable. That is of course, the point. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 20:06 | comment | added | keuleJ | +1 for rewriting in chunks and +1 for it's going to take a lot more time, effort and pain than anticipated. I would say even if you anticipate it :-) | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 19:52 | comment | added | Péter Török | @Yam, you are right, thanks for the feedback. Fixed :-) | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 19:50 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 19:29 | comment | added | Yam Marcovic | Oh right. "Above" was the problem - it's below. Consider actually putting it above as it communicates your point more clearly. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 19:02 | comment | added | Péter Török | @Yam, above I wrote in bold, right after the list of causes: "If all of these applies to your case, you probably have a reason to rewrite from scratch." - IMHO this is clear enough. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 18:26 | comment | added | Yam Marcovic | You should edit your post then because it was clear to me that you stated otherwise. By the way - I agree, it's still not easy - that's why there are about 300 examples in the book for refactorings. But it could still be worth the effort, for some of Joel's points. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 17:45 | comment | added | Péter Török | @Yam, it is a great book indeed. Lack of automated tests in itself is not an excuse, noone said it was. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 17:43 | comment | added | Péter Török | @Warren, "It's not hard to write unit tests"? Great! I can send you a few classes from our legacy app which I find somewhat problematic to unit test, please show me how easy it really is ;-) | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 16:40 | comment | added | Warren P | It's not hard to write unit tests, ergo, the "no unit tests, ergo rewrite, Joel said so himself", is pure BS. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 15:35 | comment | added | Yam Marcovic | Even when there are no automated test, this is no excuse. Check out the book "Working Effectively With Legacy Code" by Michael Feathers | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 15:10 | comment | added | Spencer Rathbun | I think this link does a good job of summing up your point programmer.97things.oreilly.com/wiki/index.php/… | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 14:59 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 30 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 14:13 | comment | added | user1249 | @SnOrfus, you should only read that after careful consideration... | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 13:31 | comment | added | Steven Evers | @Péter Török: I would! Link!? Link! ;) | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 12:28 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 66 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 12:22 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 33 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 12:18 | comment | added | Péter Török | @maple_shaft, I fully agree. He often likes strong wording and provocative statements, which of course make a bigger splash. How many of us would have read the same blog with a title like "Things You Should Do Only Rarely, After Careful Consideration of All Pros and Cons"? :-) | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 12:12 | comment | added | maple_shaft♦ | I think the Joel article shouldn't be taken as seriously as many in the industry do take it. Surely he doesn't believe there is no justification for a rewrite, just that he makes a good case for doing it only after careful and scrutinous evaluation of the situation at hand. He is against rewrite happy developers as we all should be but some sometimes polishing a turd will not get the customer to buy a turd. | |
| Sep 19, 2011 at 11:45 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 397 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 11:38 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 397 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 11:30 | history | edited | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 397 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2011 at 11:24 | history | answered | Péter Török | CC BY-SA 3.0 |