|
|
"anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome. "
A legacy can be legendary, but that's not a requirement for a legacy.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree with you! I have made beaucoup money working on legacy code.
Nothing is my fault, I always have an excuse (these days, the original developers are DEAD), and their only choice is to re-write a perfectly functioning system, even if clunky.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
There are (according to Gartner research) 14 billion lines of VB6 programming still in use.
Who is going to rewrite that ?
The reality is that much legacy code will remain. If and when we get to the position that the software will not run (presumably on some future version of Windows, or when there is no longer a Windows desktop) then the users won't upgrade from their existing version of Windows.
With Visual Basic 6, most legacy programming is likely to remain in use on Windows or on VMs or on an emulator (WINE or whatever else becomes available).
Update or open source the VB6 programming language
|
|
|
|
|
It will fade away eventually.
I have a 30yr old piece of software I am replacing because it only runs on XP now (still DOS based).
But I noticed 2-3 other pieces of VB6 code that are no longer needed, specifically BECAUSE they are
moving away from that platform...
So, I will vote that some will be killed off, and much of it will die for a lack of need.
The great thing about good code, is that it should not have to change. Although, when
that really happens, people move to new, living software 
|
|
|
|
|
That is just the way it should be.
It shouldn't be that Microsoft 'decides' everyone should re-write their software in a new Microsoft language every few years.
Now is the time for Microsoft to either update or open source the VB6 programming language ? Why won't they ? Perhaps they realize that updated VB6 programming would be more popular than their newer languages.
|
|
|
|
|
VB6 Programming wrote: The reality is that much legacy code will remain. If and when we get to the position that the software will not run (presumably on some future version of Windows, or when there is no longer a Windows desktop) then the users won't upgrade from their existing version of Windows.
I worked in a place once, when WinNT4.0 was deprecated... they bought hundreds of extra licenses to make sure they could keep producing new systems for a specific client. It mattered not in the least if it was still supported or not. There were no plans to ever upgrade - it worked, it was a closed system - there was no need to ever change.
Edit:
In retrospect... I wonder if the cost of the 'inventory' of licenses outweighed the cost of actually upgrading or not? I guess it is really all about how finance works the books.
|
|
|
|
|
At times it may feel like it's increasing but in the sum of everything that happens I think it always averages out to being about the same as usual. If sustaining was increasing I imagine businesses would be getting really concerned.
|
|
|
|
|
Every day you write something you have more legacy code too.
Stop now and you can alleviate this whole problem. 
|
|
|
|
|
I currently maintain 2 applications built in PowerBuilder (PB) and I help with a 3rd.
I didn't know PB at all when I started. I was surprised to learn that there was much more to the language than what I thought. However, there are some extreme shortcomings with the language which make it difficult/impossible to do certain things with it without using external components.
The applications themselves actually perform well, and they basically get the job done. Since there is a directive from upper management to phase out all PB apps within a few years, they will need to be rewritten in something else. There really aren't many great alternatives which would provide the same ease of development. The linchpin of PB is, and always has been the Data Window. It makes it very easy to build a window with full CRUD to a database. So far I haven't found anything that is as easy, versatile, etc. as the Data Window in any other language.
We are currently looking at rewriting everything in .Net. Quite a bit of our middle tier is already written in C++, or VB.Net. It certainly won't be an easy task once we start rewriting everything.
|
|
|
|
|
I've never tried it; but MS Lightswitch[^] is, IIRC, intended to be a quick way to slap together CRUD web applications.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Define "legacy"
(Other than a concatenated qualifier of one's walking appendage[s] and connected gluteus maximus...)
Especially if yer the only programmer at a locale for 7+ years!
|
|
|
|
|
And I quote: "code that relates to a no-longer supported systems or features".
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
Except for that the stuff I wrote over the last two years has been labeled "legacy" as we move on to "Phase 2" of the project.
You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My last job was so bad that I was no longer a software developer and eventually had to leave because of it. I had 6 hours a week allocated for development, the rest was for the 12 to 15 systems I maintained. The worst was a web site with 547 tables, the 2nd worse was a client server application with around 4000 input boxes, most without field validation. When I left it was split up between 4 people.
I don't believe in rewriting software because it is bad or old, but I do believe is software development process and testing disciplines. If we can get it out of the door with near zero bugs, the software will be easy to maintain and eventually become forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
We have products with long lifetimes. We have products originally developed with Visual C++ 6, now being maintained using Visual Studio 2003, and are still under active maintenance.
One of our current generation products, developed and maintained using Visual Studio 2008, has a current development branch, two maintenance branches, and five branches for OEM development.
I've had library bug fixes that required updating over a dozen branches of code.
We weep for joy when the pointy-haired-bosses finally end-of-life a product, because that means there's one less chunk of legacy code to deal with.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since I strongly believe in the importance of Refactoring I constantly try to implement it whenever I find it possible. Either if it is a bug fix or some new feature which has any sort of dependency on legacy code, I try to get rid of legacy code, aiming to avoid future maintenance nightmares and set the correct basis for more flexible and extendable development. I see it as investment which is certain that will payoff.
Good knowledge of Design Patterns is a great help when trying to minimize legacy code. Of course there are deadlines and priorities which set limitations on the time that you can invest on Refactoring, but if someone gets used on refactoring he can achieve constant decreasing of legacy code.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Though I always try to get rid of legacy codes and implement the new way, Sometimes the way the application was developed and time constraint forces me to stick to the legacy code
|
|
|
|
|
|
when I was trying to move from .NET framework 2.0 to 4.5 I thought I just want to compile code with 4.5 and it will ready to deploy But ... 
There are lot of changes I need to do to just compile my project and after deployment I can see my gridview child controls ID's are created with fashion and it gives me error at many places.
So I say its Increasing...(for old code)
n its Decreasing...(for Just developed code  )
Find More .Net development tips at : .NET Tips
The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
|
|
|
.Net framework 2.0 to 4.5? I am pretty sure that you were frustrated with,
"this method is obsolete, it has been replaced by....." at many instances..
|
|
|
|
|
.NET 3.0 was released in 2008, was your company asleep for 6 years?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
