[ejames]

If you're dealing with a complex system that needs a lot of work, I would recommend trying to break it down into subsystems and handle the subsystems one at a time.

The original article does assume that you're dealing with a system that more-or-less works. If your application flatly doesn't do the right thing, than a big rewrite from scratch may really be the best choice - there's nothing to save.

But spaghetti code doesn't just fall from the sky, it occurs because of politics, stubbornness, and bad processes. Over the course of the 10+ years it took to make the code base, is it really the case that nobody but you noticed the problem? It's more likely that there's a lot of pressure going in the opposite direction, and other maintainers didn't know what to do either.

Dealing with subsystems helps you handle both problems. Management might not be willing to let you rewrite the whole thing, but if you said, "Let's just fix the boot-up process for the Cyclotron 4000 resource. Nothing else changes, just the Cyclotron boot." you might be able to get permission. In a badly-maintained project, it's hard to replace all the instances of one service - that's what makes it 'badly-maintained' - but it's still easier than dealing with the whole system in one go. And, of course, instead of 'fixing' the Cyclotron you're actually rewriting it with a new, non-wacko Cyclotron service.

Then you go back to your manager and say, "It was rough, but the Cyclotron 4000 no longer blocks the start-up. Let's get the next thing on the list." Not only do you have a slightly better project, you also have better credibility with management, which makes it more likely you'll be listened to when you say a certain technical measure is necessary. Next, fix the subsystem that talks to the Cyclotron - and so on. Pick a right time to introduce tests, code review, and all the rest.

Remember that just as you had the experience working with the terrible code base, your managers had the experience of working with the previous 3 or 4 software architects who "had their own vision" and delivered a product that doesn't start up reliably - I don't think it's surprising that there was no longer the political will to assign people to refactoring or rewriting tasks. Bad architecture uses up the political will needed to approve good architecture, because it makes all "architecture" tasks look bad. You need to regard you reputation as a finite, under-supplied resource just as much as your time and budget and plan to get more.

From your use of the past tense, it looks like you're no longer in that situation (good for you!)... but that would be my advice if you see a similar situation in the future. I've used this plan in my own career to rewrite a (much smaller, only moderately troubled) project piece by piece over the course of a year.

[mirsadm]

Good response! Another part of the problem was that the company preferred contractors over full time staff. It had very high turn over because of this. Many have already replaced subsystems with their own versions over time. There had already been many implementations of the Cyclotron subsystem :). To be honest I probably ended up being one of them. Working there was too stressful and the rewards for trying to achieve more were not recognised.

The place had a reputation for hiring highly motivated engineers and burning them out. Just to be replaced by another. When I left, they hired a very talented guy that I worked with for a couple of months. He left recently and the cycle begins again!