I have software in the real world that has evolved since 1993. No major re-writes, just fix what's broken and add more functionality as needed. This saves the user headaches and the client money.
--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Paul McNett <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Paul McNett <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [NF] And in other FUD news, > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 1:16 PM > On 2/17/11 10:03 AM, John Harvey > wrote: > > I think he's referring to the "hype" factor. > > Sort of. > > Rewriting code instead of building upon existing code would > be sort of like tearing > down a building and building it again, from scratch, > because it needed a new paint > job or heating system. > > Sure, programs, like buildings, do reach the end of their > service life and it no > longer makes sense to keep putting another layer on top of > the ancient technology. > But then you'd have a brand-new 1.0 program, not version > 7.0 of the old program. > > Yes Stephen, I refactor and rewrite methods quite often, > but only when it makes sense > vis-a-vis the current change or enhancement I'm > implementing. My code isn't static > but constantly evolving. This isn't what I'm referring to > with the phrase "major > rewrite". > > Paul > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
