[felooboolooomba]

With a title like that you have to back it up. It's a shallow article.

> why it was worth doing, because it wasn't, at least not to the business. The application did the same job for the same users at the same speed as before.

Application have many other properties then "doing their job". Running cost, maintainability, ... it's endless. Any of them going seriously wrong can tank the company owning it.

But I agree, rewrites are very often bad. I've been the customer of two banks that spent years to rewrite their online bank. It was crap and missing features! But maybe they got something out of it.

[baranul]

A rewrite needs to first make business sense and where there is clear ROI. The problem for many companies, is they can get suckered by architecture astronauts and their specific or peculiar tastes, so that they end up just flushing lots of money down the toilet.

And then the architecture astronauts, especially the slick ones, jump ship before people fully recognize or become aware of the new bugs, level of waste, or extent of damage that was done.

[shalmanese]

> It's a shallow article.

Yeah, because it was generated by AI.

As soon as I got to "That is the pattern worth naming. Most rewrites answer to the engineer - ", I stopped reading.