Yes, there are many legitimate reasons to rewrite like dieng frameworks/languages. However we are discussing here the case where reason proposed for the rewrite is solely to satisfy physiological need of some developers to work on code they can call it their own. A lot of things can be done by refactoring but the devs with these issues often just start new projects of their own that does same thing. In companies like Google, for example, there are at least 5 different products for messaging.
Re:Software Engineering at Google (2017)
by gtirloni on Friday January 04, 2019 @09:24AM
(#18824209)
Ok, understood. I think the point I was trying to make (and apparently didn't write it down correct thus the downvotes) is that sometimes the ownership argument could just be an easier, less politically charged way to engage the audience. Who would argue against letting some new developer take ownership of something (if they have the skills, of course)? While discussing all those other questions I posed could open a can of worms.
Re:Software Engineering at Google (2017)
by seanmcdirmid on Friday January 04, 2019 @09:12AM
(#18824128)
Do you mean psychological or really physiological? I get the former, the latter seems dubious at best.
What is the current programming language used?
Is the project mostly legacy (few or no changes in the last few years)?
Is the project critical to the company?
How many people are working on it today? Are they fully assigned to it or is it a "touch when it breaks" kind of situation?
Is the project following modern CI/CD practices? If not, how hard would it be to adapt in the current software stack? Would it be easier in a new stack?
Are developers spending more time than expected understanding the code base?
Is it a political situation? Is the current owner refusing changes? Could it be that rewriting it is just a costly way for removing ownership from that developer/manager?