A while ago I interviewed with a company planning to rewrite their existing money-making product with lots of users that consisted of CGI scripts with most of the business logic in Oracle stored procedures. The developers and management seemed sharp. All but one of the original product devs were gone and nobody really knew the system. The size of the rewrite was a concern of mine that I brought up in the interview. If stored procedures were a pain point, swapping them out piece by piece seemed wise to me, but they thought that a focusing their developers for a big switchover would be less costly. Their Python rewrite didn’t go too well. I believe they’re on Rewrite Part II with .NET and SQL Server after hiring an ex-Microsoft manager to take over the project. In the meantime, nobody wants to maintain on the old product which is on its way out.
Rewrite everything… all the time
Joel Spolsky calls rewrites the single worst strategic mistake a company can make. At the same time, only dead code is static. New features and extensions are a sign of a healthy project. Sometimes these improvements involve big and invasive changes. At his product tech talk a few months ago, Adam Wolff talked about the culture of Facebook and how they do software development. As part of their approach, he said that Facebook “rewrites everything all the time”. This strategy — at least on the surface — sounds similar to what Joel Spolsky sees as a complete disaster. Facebook can’t be making such huge mistakes constantly, though, or the competition would catch up. Adam mentioned Joel’s post in his talk and then went on to describe how Facebook developers find a bit of the stack with some code odor, carve out their niche and then rewrite it.
After thinking on this for a bit, I came to the realization that this is not a rewrite at all. At least it isn’t a rewrite in the same way Joel described Netscape rewriting Navigator. Facebook as a whole hasn’t changed. A part of it was just ripped out and replaced with a newer version with all the critical features of the last revision and more. In my mind, I would characterize that as a refactor. I don’t want to argue semantics, but Facebook’s approach — after some reflection — seems quite good. Code that doesn’t change doesn’t get looked at and when the original developers leave, a company can get left with a code base nobody knows. Jeff Atwood says that understanding means rewriting and so hopefully Facebook has a system that’s been through many iterations and a number of people understand. When my page became a timeline, a number of engineers learned a lot I bet.
Size, among other things, does matter
Legacy of code
Code becomes legacy code when nobody touches it for a long time, the developers who know it leave, and everything else changes around it. While code doesn’t rust or degrade with time, the know-how around it does fade away. Developers want to create something great that will be used for a long time; they are architects at heart. However, they don’t want to maintain a bloated, poorly documented system built by somebody else (who is probably gone and creating the next bloated, poorly documented system). The best way I’ve seen as a developer to keep code from becoming “legacy” is to make it my own. To make it my own doesn’t mean rewriting the whole thing from scratch, but rather making incremental improvement where I can or swapping out components where it makes sense. This builds a sense of ownership for the next generation of maintainers. The key here is to write software such that making these types of improvements or swapping things out is easy. Good APIs and separation of concerns are critical.
When big changes are on the horizon and the future of a software project looks least sure, I’ve found that breaking a project into smaller pieces always helps. Unless you end up working on something completely different, at least some of the old code will always be useful to the new project provided the API makes it easy to integrate. To give a concrete example from a project I’m working on relating to automation against an array of Android phones, a solid Python interface to ADB (the Android debug bridge) will almost definitely be worthwhile regardless of what else changes. Hopefully the legacy I leave won’t be a large unmaintainable system but a large number of small systems that are easier to understand.