|
Anyone who selected less than 80% isn't a real programmer. 
|
|
|
|
|
NO, most likely they are doing new work in .net. My answer would have been 90% before .net came along, now we are re-writing every app in .net, down the road my answer will flip to supporting legacy code again. It's the cycle of things, any "real programmer" who spends 80% of their time supporting legacy code forever isn't really a programmer, more of a caretaker.
"A preoccupation with the next world pretty clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one."
|
|
|
|
|
CP Visitor wrote:
Anyone who selected less than 80% isn't a real programmer.
I suggest the opposite! Everyone who selected more than 80% has bad luck or isn't a good enough programmer to do new code.
Behind every great black man...
... is the police. - Conspiracy brother
Blog[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't there a point in the lifecycle where you should say: "Ok, it's bugfree or i'ts dead...". You can't support your old creations forever. This would stop you from beginning something new and better.
WM.
What about weapons of mass-construction?
|
|
|
|
|
True, but some companies have one or more main products that they keep upgrading. These companies would have to maintain the code for every major change they make.
Behind every great black man...
... is the police. - Conspiracy brother
Blog[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I selected "I don't touch legacy code" because, in my current job, I am the first developer they've had. There was no legacy code. I guess if I go back and update any of my projects, I'm working on legacy code.
|
|
|
|
|
That's a retarded comment. How do you think all the legacy code came to be?
--
An eye for an eye will only make the world blind.
|
|
|
|
|
It varies, but I would likely tend to agree. If you aren't working with 80% legacy code, even if you are working with new features, then most likely you're a start up or this is a completely bran new project and has a long way to go. Even those who don't "support" legacy code still "work" with legacy code, so I would definately agree.
I wouldn't say that those people "aren't real programmers" but I would say that "they definately haven't worked or aren't working on a large project".
So, even if you start a new project, that means that there is very little code. Then it's "how long does code sit around before you deem it as 'legacy'"? In 2-3 years your project will be pretty big. If you add a new feature, that code that you plug into could technically be considered "legacy".
You also have to wonder about those who re-write their entire code base. Perhaps it wasn't that big to begin with, wasn't that complex or they're going to be working on it for many years until it's finished!
I work on a very large code base which contains everything from video drivers to NT Services  It wouldn't be a simple task to re-write everything from scratch!
8bc7c0ec02c0e404c0cc0680f7018827ebee
|
|
|
|
|
CP Visitor wrote:
Anyone who selected less than 80% isn't a real programmer
I think it's called moving on and keeping your skills upto date, anyway .net is far more interesting than skimming thru MFC/ATL.
Blogless
My Blog ^
|
|
|
|
|
I much prefer this:
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
modern C++ with lots of Boost and STL
to this:
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
old-style C++
Trouble is that there's too much, even recent, C++ that's written in the old style. 
Kevin
|
|
|
|
|
If something works - don't touch!!!
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't touch it you don't have to see you dumb mistakes or inefficient ways of doing things. One of the reasons I don't touch old code it because I have learnt better ways of doing things. Once you know better you can never go back
http://doubin.forwardslash.com
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. When all the bugs and clitches are worked out, why re-code it unless you need to support a new system/os of some kind.
|
|
|
|
|
Up until about 15 months ago, I was 80% engaged in supporting an MFC based desktop application. Myself and a couple of others had written about 95% of the app. Over the last year or so, that support effort has dwindled down to less than 10%. I'm still doing C++ development though for another software product the company sells. That product is not Windows based, though.
Chris Meech
I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar]
Remember that in Texas, Gun Control is hitting what you aim at. [Richard Stringer]
Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess its code from an other programmer. That's what I'm thinking.;)
|
|
|
|
|
exactly what i was wondering... my assumption is applications developed in now-obsolete languages / frameworks - so i would include ASP 3 as legacy (since currently we do everything in C#/.NET)
|
|
|
|
|
Legacy code: code written for a different era, often using old technologies, that must be maintained because systems depend on it.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit.
I'm currently blogging about: Conversation With a Muslim
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
At what point does code become "Legacy"? My current company is a startup, we are 3 1/2 years old, and we have written everything in .NET/SQL 2000 (we started with VS.NET beta 2).
There is a significant amount of code that was written in the first 2 years that I hate to touch (it makes me cringe just looking at it).
|
|
|
|
|
Good question. Is it important to have a specific point in which code is called 'legacy'? To me, legacy code is any that I'd prefer to rewrite but leave in place because many systems depend on it.
So while that piece of code I wrote last week might break a few things when refactored, it is not legacy because I can rewrite it without it having huge implications. OTOH, the code I wrote 2 years ago might be rather touchy; I might decide to leave it in place for the sake of keeping things working.
I'm in a similar situation to you. I work for a small company, and we've been writing .NET and SQL code for almost 3 years now. Fortunately, we refactor so much that I don't consider any of my code 'legacy'; I've gone in and refactored and changed nearly every line of code since its original form. Because of that, we have a flexible (although often buggy) codebase that isn't fragile in the least. Personally, I like the flexible/buggy option rather than the fragile/stable way, at least until we near deployment time, at which time it's all fixing and stablizing the code base.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit.
I'm currently blogging about: Conversation With a Muslim
Judah Himango
|
|
|
|
|
... guess I'm lucky...
Norman Fung
|
|
|
|
|
I now only have one project still active that can be considered legacy code, and that is now slowly getting a MyXaml/C# makeover.
I do miss supporting old code sometimes. I miss the enjoyment of tracking down those obscure bugs. The kind where you have to step through code, one statement at a time, checking every value and wondering who the heck wrote the crap code... only to remember that it was yourself about five years earlier. 
Michael
CP Blog [^] Development Blog [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Michael P Butler wrote:
only to remember that it was yourself about five years earlier
 happened to us all at one stage i reckon!!
|
|
|
|
|
...is that counting Windows 98? 
You must be careful in the forest
Broken glass and rusty nails
If you're to bring back something for us
I have bullets for sale...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
