It is interesting how difficult rewrites are. It seems simple, do the same thing with much more foresight and much better tools, yet, you are right, failure often follows.
> On Mar 11, 2019, at 11:37 PM, Jed Brown <j...@jedbrown.org> wrote: > > Rewrites are super risky and the subject of classic articles. > > https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/ > > (NB: Firefox might not exist today if not for that rewrite. But they > probably would have done better at retaining market share and thus had > more money for incremental refactoring had they worked incrementally.) > > I'm highly skeptical that a rewrite is appropriate for PETSc. Could a > second implementation language be introduced? Perhaps, with an > appropriate plan. > > "Zhang, Hong via petsc-dev" <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> writes: > >> Is linux kernel maintainable and extendable? Does anyone want to reimplement >> linux in Julia? >> >> Hong (Mr.) >> >>> On Mar 11, 2019, at 9:28 PM, Smith, Barry F. via petsc-dev >>> <petsc-dev@mcs.anl.gov> wrote: >>> >>> >>> PETSc source code is becoming an unmaintainable, unextendable monstrosity. >>> How long until Julia is mature enough that we can (re)implement PETSc in it? >>> >>> Barry >>>
