An insurance company started in 2009 has contacted me about fixing their site and adding some features. The site was also started in 2009. They run the company through this Rails site, all the back office stuff, plus some customer-facing pages about signing up, making claims, etc.
It's Rails 3, and it's pretty awful. 50 models with all possibly-related code. Many fat controllers with tons of business and services logic. No service objects or anything similar. A few tests, but they don't run. Three or 4 Javascript libraries (Mootools!), dozens of JS and CSS files. Bootstrap 2. Hand-made authentication. Can-can gem for authorization, but it's not used, hundreds of lines of code for authorization are embedded in controllers and views. Lots of jQuery, Prototype, and similar. They want to ditch their developers because for each of the last couple features they tried to add, something else broke. Clearly, it would be a huge job to bring this site up to par, but what I'm wondering is if it wouldn't just be better to toss it and build a new site from scratch. Lift code where possible, but build anew. My limited experience says that even with the best of intentions codebases that are this bad never get fixed completely, it's just too hard to make the business case for fixing so many things not visible to the users and owner. Has anyone ever seen a decision like this? Thanks, Scott RailsRescue.com (rescue - ha!) -- -- SD Ruby mailing list [email protected] http://groups.google.com/group/sdruby --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SD Ruby" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
