[maxxxxx]

"Red Flag #4: You aren’t working with people who were experts in the old system.”

I think this is most important. A lot of people want to rewrite because they don't understand the current system and don't want to bother learning. Before you rewrite you really should understand the current state deeply.

[majormajor]

The way I've phrased something similar before is "don't do a full rewrite if you couldn't write up a plan for refactoring in place to fix the problems with the old system."

If you can build that plan, and make the case that it will be easier to do the full rewrite, go for it. But if you couldn't put together the fix-in-place plan, you might not understand everything the old system does well enough to actually estimate the size of a rewrite...

(This isn't solely for full-parity rewrites: if you're dropping features, what does that look like dropping from the old system?)

[gwbas1c]

I was involved in a rewrite where it would have been much easier to refactor the old system.

A year into the process one of the c-level leaders pulled me into a room and asked why I couldn't fix the legacy code, and I basically told him that he should have pushed back on it. I couldn't fix the legacy code because that would be months of refactoring that should have been done instead of the rewrite.

Context: the legacy code had some design flaws that required major refactoring, but the legacy code "worked" except for very large deployments. The only problem was that the legacy system wasn't modular, so it didn't have unit tests and wasn't cross platform. All of those problems are easier to tackle via refactoring instead of a full rewrite.

[mehrdadn]

> The way I've phrased something similar before is "don't do a full rewrite if you couldn't write up a plan for refactoring in place to fix the problems with the old system."

Hmm... there have been a number of times when I've banged my head against the wall trying to figure out how to make my own code do something, until I finally bit the bullet and decided to rewrite the entire chunk from scratch and suddenly it took a fraction of the time I had spent trying to fix it to get it written and working. Not sure how to reconcile this with the advice you gave.

[miceeatnicerice]

I agree, rewriting with a clear head works wonders - but, to be fair to the op, when you rewrite your own code you'll be very appreciative of all the challenges and possibilities.

It's a very different kettle of fish to rewrite from scratch strange code you've not properly explored and given a chance to - which is the usual situation.

[mehrdadn]

Great point, I didn't realize that aspect!

[mannykannot]

Knowing what the system should do, in sufficient detail that there is nothing of significance to be discovered with regard to its requirements, while simultaneously not actually knowing enough about how it works to the point where you could plan how to refactor it, is quite a corner case in the field of legacy systems (the latter is quite commonplace, but the former is almost unheard of.)

[kwhitefoot]

Rewriting a chunk is much easier than rewriting the whole application.

In fact rewriting a chunk sounds rather like refactoring.

[zelos]

Rewriting "a chunk" of code kind of is refactoring, though.

[fgonzag]

But rewriting one chunk at a time could be considered refactoring.

[mehrdadn]

Yes, two other people have said the same thing already. I don't personally agree with it but I don't have a response beyond that.

[ebikelaw]

Yep, seen that. I worked on a system where the company did not really want a reimplementation but they destaffed a project in one site and reconstituted it with all new people at another site. The new people decided to rewrite from scratch. A year and a half later I start getting questions by email from the new people, questions indicating that not only do they not understand the implementation of the legacy system, they also do not clearly understand the business requirements that resulted in that implementation. Meanwhile, the maintenance of the old system had been neglected to such an extent it had fallen behind critical company-wide mandates. This was more of a lesson about why you shouldn’t destaff a project over some petty geographical squabbles, but also quite clearly about why you should always incrementally reimplement software rather that rewriting it.

[antsar]

Also known as Chesterton's Fence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton's_...

[_asummers]

Even having the entirety of the original dev team there, time takes its toll on recollection of reasoning behind some of the strange decisions made in something that would warrant a rewrite. Much preferable to not having them, of course.

[DiabloD3]

Something I do is if the code looks weird or is rather small for how much work went into it, I leave a comment that says why this was done... just so I can remind myself in 6 months when I go "who the fuck wrote this garbage... oh, me."

[mcguire]

On the other hand, experts will frequently demand that the new system do the same thing as the old system, in the same way.

You can't blindly listen to the experts.

[munk-a]

#4 is sort of terribly worded, the summary line is something that is important and pretty independent, make sure you're working with expert users of the system... then the explanation brings in a Senior Dev as a good resource to tap. This is the wrong direction, you really want to consult with the system experts to see their rationale for requesting what might seem like odd functionality in the first place.

#4 also mixes a good deal with #5 in that any changes you make (even purely good ones in your view) will require retraining of users and cause a kerfuffle when rolled out to your user base, people _hate_ change.

[arendtio]

I can't state it better. If you don't understand the decisions made during the development of the old system you are unlikely to come up with something much better.

[pbreit]

This strikes me as dangerous. Didn't the experts build the first system? Don't you want to deliver a fresher system? Won't the experts be attached to the old way of doing things?

[zbentley]

> Didn't the experts build the first system? Don't you want to deliver a fresher system? Won't the experts be attached to the old way of doing things?

With all respect, that means you should not be in a position to rewrite legacy code, or to commit others to such a rewrite.

If all the experts you have worked with have been, in your eyes, overly attached to the old way of doing things, you have one of two issues:

- You have not had enough experience in the field, and have not worked with experts that actually have perspective about when/how to rewrite, abandon, or rework their code.

- You have dogmatically condemned people who think that the latest-and-greatest tech may not be a good solution to the problems at hand to the "old fogey" bin.

Either issue means you're not ready to make decisions at this level. Learn more. Research more. Watch more. Listen more.

Weirdly, gaining this perspective has less to do (in my experience) with years on the job, and more with diversity of team/business environments worked in.

[maxxxxx]

Keep in mind that you will be one of these people in a few years for whatever you are doing now. The previous people most likely weren't dummies but had to deal with the technology and constraints at the time they built the system in the same way you are doing it now.

[grantism]

No necessarily. It depends on what has lead to the need for a rebuild. Sometimes there weren't previously the resources to "do things properly", Sometimes a feature might only added for a specific client, etc.

You need that previous knowledge to know the "why" of things & if that why is still valid.

IMHO it's more dangerous if you're working with experts who don't want to improve the system.

[pjc50]

Ah, "the public have had enough of experts", the attitude responsible for most of our present political disasters.