[wissler]

I'd never preemptively judge what could be done with an architecture without looking at it first. There are always creative possibilities, so if their is something wrong with their technology choice (not saying there is), then I wouldn't preemptively rule out being able to do something about it.

Of course, maybe sarcastic presumptuousness is what they are after? Why not send in your resume?

[StavrosK]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize my estimation was binding.

You saw a job posting and assumed that they treat their technology choices as unassailable and immutable, and I pointed out that it may not be economic for them to change their entire codebase. You seem to have turned this discussion into an argument about their codebase having a problem and requiring action. Who's being presumptuous?

[wissler]

"You seem to have turned this discussion into an argument about their codebase having a problem and requiring action. Who's being presumptuous?"

You are, and in a very ironic way. I never said their codebase had a problem. I don't know anything about their codebase. It might be just peachy.

Look at it this way. What if someone was hiring you to build pyramids by lifting each stone using only the narrowly prescribed box of using your own power (since "that's how we've always done it" say), they might also say that your focus on horses and pulleys was a wasteful obsession about means instead of ends and that you shouldn't flinch about dragging each stone yourself all day every day. They might think you are just wasting your time tinkering when you should be moving stones instead, but the truth is that your means are the only human way to reach those ends.

But again, their codebase might be perfectly fine. The thing is, I don't like to be told that I have to accept that it is before I've looked at it myself. They can have a really good hacker who will keep his head down, pump out code, and not question past decisions, or they can have critical thinking, but not both.