--On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:07 PM -0400 Peter Shenkin
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> My own view is that such comparisons are usually red herrings.
Yes. I've got to agree with this and the point that Keith mentioned
earlier: If management needs formal references to understand
that converting legacy codes can cost resources (sometimes lots of
resources), then you have a lot bigger problems. That would mean
either they are incompetent or have already made up their minds
(or both).
Typically, one needs justification *TO* undertake such
a project, rather than justification not to. Doing code rewrites
can be a good and cost-effective idea for many reasons (not
necessarily having anything to do with language conversion).
And for a small project, it may be easier to just do it than
to study it to death. But for a major project, one would hope
that the expected benefits and costs of the project would be
explicitly laid out in detail rather than "we heard a rumor
that our maintenance costs will be decreased by doing a conversion,
so we are going to do it unless someone can show sufficient
formal evidence why we shouldn't."
I'm quite familiar with management approaches like that. Maybe
it is foreign to your organization, but I know ones where it
exists. :-( It doesn't tend to be a good sign. It also tends to mean
that one would be wasting time in proving why it is a bad idea because
they won't accept any proof.
--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
[log in to unmask] | experience comes from bad judgment.
| -- Mark Twain
|