|
As for Joe's comments regarding keeping the logic that's in place, I can't agree more. Yes, it sure seems like a temptation to completely re-write and start over (now that I'm so much smarter than I was - HA!) But look at Netscape: whilst they re-wrote their browser to fit in the constrained memory model, Microsoft blew them apart in the marketplace. Very few ISVs are willing to go down the same road, which is why 'refactoring' has such appeal. I can also speak from the home-grown software side of the house, having done that for 17 years. My employers were completely unwilling to spend an hour to re-write something that was working well enough. If I had to go into the code for other reasons, it was OK to re-factor, but extensive re-work was frowned upon. The last major code construction/development effort was back in the days when we moved from card/batch processing to workstation/transaction at a time processing. And even then, many of the 'individual transactions' simply fed our old batch files. It took years of incremental improvements to become completely transaction oriented.
The point of this monotonous note is to try to explain what companies with small budgets and small staffs go through when faced with a major technology change. I hope I was able to convey some of that...
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.