Den 22/06/10 18.38, James Perkins skrev:
I kind of see the backwards compatibility as a blessing and a curse. It'slooked
great things work, but it also leads to code that never really gets
because it just works. I've seen code out there just about as old as Iam. A
lot of the code I end up having to working was written in the 80's and90's.
Joel Spolsky puts it much better than I can:
" The idea that new code is better than old is patently absurd. Old code
has been /used/. It has been /tested/. /Lots/ of bugs have been found,
and they've been /fixed/. There's nothing wrong with it. It doesn't
acquire bugs just by sitting around on your hard drive. Au contraire,
baby! Is software supposed to be like an old Dodge Dart, that rusts just
sitting in the garage? Is software like a teddy bear that's kind of
gross if it's not made out of /all new material/?" --
I understand that you mean "change code" when you say "look at code".
That means you have to test and debug your changes, and document them
which is actually quite a bit of work if you fiddle with critical stuff.
It is ok to do all that work if you HAVE to, but why do it otherwise?
 more or less :) In any case you can leave it more documented than
you found it.
Thorbjørn Ravn Andersen "...plus... Tubular Bells!"
This is the Rational Developer for IBM i / Websphere Development Studio
Client for System i & iSeries (WDSCI-L) mailing list
To post a message email: WDSCI-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
or email: WDSCI-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.