On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamore...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 11/11/2013 06:50, Rick Johnson wrote: >> In a nutshell the author attempts to plead for the >> "longevity" of "old code bases" simply on the basis of his >> assertion that "old code bases" are "less buggy" and >> contain more "wisdom" than their new brethren -- both of >> which are absurd conclusions! >> > > I recall that the demise of Netscape was due to them trying to completely > rewrite code of this nature. The exception that proves the rule?
No, I would say Netscape's experience is a strong supporting example of the contrary position. I've frequently had need to reimplement something (most recently as part of porting functionality from RosMud, written in C++, to Gypsum, written in Pike), and referencing the old code is the best way to benefit from X years of corner-case discoveries and bug fixes. Sometimes I'll even copy and paste a comment from one version to another, because it perfectly explains some oddity that the code has to handle - even if the code itself is completely rewritten. Definitely if hunks of code can be kept, they should be. The old code base *IS* less buggy and contains more wisdom. Hardly absurd. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list