Sure, though having gone through an entire monorepo refactoring of like half a million lines to basically destroy the codebase and switch from vue 2 to vue 3 among other things, it’s also possible to build the new, better designed wall right behind the old one, test like hell against that wall, and then shift that wall in when it’s ready in a planned release, ready for the issues that come because that wall isn’t quite like the old wall

[–] nebeker@programming.dev 16 points 5 days ago (1 children)

This is a dangerous metaphor. Remove the old wall and it turns out the new beautiful wall was leaning against and supported by it.

I get what you mean, it’s just that the metaphor could support both perspectives.

[–] BuboScandiacus@mander.xyz 15 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Build the new wall airgapped from the old one

[–] tomiant@programming.dev 11 points 5 days ago

And keep both walls for redundancy.

[–] nebeker@programming.dev 1 points 3 days ago

Ah, yes: weaponizing cybersecurity requirements to trick - I mean “motivate” - higher management to do things “right.”

[–] baines@lemmy.cafe 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

no one has a budget for that

your whole team is fired, we got ‘Bob’ from India handling this now

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Making the new wall is not a money generator. You would be insane if you think suits would waste money to rebuild something when it generated minimal to no additional revenue.

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

True, I'm lucky to work for a company that was half founded by engineers who know the cost of compounding technical debt, which is almost never the case.