Datasets:
willtheorangeguy
/
2022-Go-Time-Transcripts

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[3091.22 --> 3092.88] decide they're having a great day.
[3093.00 --> 3097.74] They're like, you have a year, you have two years, however long it takes, we need to rebuild
[3097.74 --> 3099.10] this thing and make it better.
[3099.38 --> 3104.34] When you are architecting that new solution, we are thinking through how do we build this
[3104.34 --> 3110.90] new thing, how do you, from day one, from the whiteboarding session, build something that
[3110.90 --> 3115.86] is going to avoid being legacy for as long as possible?
[3116.10 --> 3116.46] I.e.
[3116.46 --> 3120.42] is it always having microservices, making sure nothing is deeply coupled?
[3120.64 --> 3123.32] Like what are some things, some questions to be asked?
[3123.80 --> 3128.26] How do you go about designing a new system already with legacy in mind?
[3128.26 --> 3133.70] I would say from the jump, understand what went wrong with your old system.
[3133.90 --> 3140.10] I think people run for microservices or for Kafka or for some new flashy tech at the end
[3140.10 --> 3140.48] of the day.
[3140.56 --> 3143.46] Like they're like, oh, the problem was we weren't using microservice or something.
[3143.60 --> 3148.22] But it's like, sit down and actually think like, why don't you like working this good?
[3148.30 --> 3151.18] Why, why have we had to declare bankruptcy on this code base?
[3151.50 --> 3156.76] A thing that I have done that has hilariously sometimes wound up with me not actually abandoning
[3156.76 --> 3160.62] old code bases when I really wanted to, because like the problems I wanted to fix, I could
[3160.62 --> 3161.92] just fix in that old code base.
[3161.96 --> 3163.82] So why make a whole new one with all new problems?
[3164.24 --> 3168.50] But I think that's definitely where I tend to start is like, what is it about this code
[3168.50 --> 3172.14] base I'm working on now that's making it so I want to build a new one?
[3172.70 --> 3174.16] John, what do you think?
[3174.32 --> 3177.22] I know this is something that I'm hoping you're thinking about.
[3178.80 --> 3182.32] I don't know if I got too much on this one.
[3182.32 --> 3188.18] But also off the record, for those who didn't see my cheeky smirk, John and Jeff, in fact,
[3188.24 --> 3189.26] are both on my team.
[3189.48 --> 3193.84] So when I make any cheeky comments in their direction, it is slightly more layered than
[3193.84 --> 3196.66] other people who don't have that context may know.
[3197.16 --> 3199.04] And I am their technical product manager.
[3199.52 --> 3201.70] So that's also a context that you should know.
[3201.84 --> 3205.12] I am speaking off the record as a business person.
[3205.56 --> 3206.68] Undercover business person.
[3206.92 --> 3207.62] I'm undercover.
[3207.78 --> 3208.66] Secret gopher.
[3208.66 --> 3210.28] Well, overt gopher.
[3210.44 --> 3211.62] Secret product manager.
[3211.62 --> 3218.72] I don't know, Jeff, like, what are some questions that you would hope if I was to go to you,
[3218.78 --> 3222.92] Jeff, and be like, hey, Jeff, I'm thinking we should completely get rid of our current
[3222.92 --> 3224.28] platform and rewrite it.
[3224.62 --> 3228.22] What would be things that would pop to your head as things you would need to, you would
[3228.22 --> 3233.40] want to be given time to think about before we kind of went, right, this is the new architecture.
[3233.40 --> 3234.74] Let's go code.
[3234.74 --> 3238.78] Yeah, I'm definitely following what Chris is saying.
[3238.78 --> 3242.88] It's definitely you have to understand why you're trying to rewrite everything, right?
[3243.28 --> 3247.54] You don't want to rewrite just for the sake of, oh, we have lots of issues with this codebase.
[3247.70 --> 3251.74] Maybe we should just declare bankruptcy and start something new.
[3252.04 --> 3255.06] It's definitely something I myself have been interested in.
[3255.06 --> 3266.42] And I like for our team specifically, we're in the middle of kind of rewriting our two platforms and getting some historical context as to why we went that route.
[3266.66 --> 3267.72] It would be interesting.
[3267.82 --> 3268.50] But I do not.
[3268.62 --> 3269.10] I don't know.
[3269.12 --> 3273.74] I don't want to trigger John's PTSD too much because it looks like he's going through something.
[3274.00 --> 3274.88] The question came up.
[3274.88 --> 3275.52] Yeah.
[3276.52 --> 3278.70] And I guess rewrites are tough.
[3278.84 --> 3288.32] I feel like everybody at some point in their career needs to go through the let's just do a rewrite because of it and feel the pain and watch it fall flat on its face and waste like six months of their lives.
[3288.72 --> 3289.68] Six months if you're lucky.
[3290.18 --> 3290.50] Yeah.
[3290.70 --> 3294.08] I'm like I've seen like entire years go down the drain.
[3294.08 --> 3299.68] So having an understanding of the risk involved is huge.
[3300.28 --> 3305.82] And you know if there are scenarios that do warrant it but they're the exception rather than the rule.
[3305.82 --> 3322.64] So am I right in assuming that if your product partner or the business came to you, I'm speaking to all of you here, and said, right, Chris, Misha, Dominic, I know you've been working with this 20 plus year in Dominic's case infrastructure.
[3322.64 --> 3327.64] We're going to give you five years maximum to rewrite completely.
[3328.20 --> 3334.16] Would there be cases in which you would then, after assessing, be like, no, actually we don't want to rewrite?
[3334.56 --> 3337.96] Or would you always, if given the opportunity, want to rewrite?
[3338.06 --> 3343.30] If given the buy-in, the money, the time to do it, would you always jump at that opportunity?
[3343.72 --> 3350.04] I would only rewrite a software that works if the technology is not going to exist sooner.
[3350.24 --> 3352.16] Take like old system like COBOL.
[3352.64 --> 3359.46] In Quebec, there is a couple of companies that are still built on top of AS400 and COBOL and whatnot.
[3360.20 --> 3362.94] I mean, there's no manpower anymore for that.
[3363.24 --> 3364.00] So what do you do?
[3364.36 --> 3365.36] You don't have a choice.
[3365.90 --> 3375.78] But I would be extremely careful to rewrite the software not built from a long-time software from scratch.
[3375.78 --> 3382.12] I would still try to see if there is something that can be done other than a complete rewrite.
[3382.36 --> 3383.32] I'm in agreement there.
[3383.54 --> 3390.96] I mean, I think when it comes to Greenfield projects or when it comes to rewriting legacy projects, just don't.
[3390.96 --> 3393.44] Like, I think that's kind of the hard and fast rule most of the time.
[3393.44 --> 3401.02] Because like, sure, there's usually like, usually we get to the point where we wanted to rewrite something when there's like, I would say 20 to 30% of it.
[3401.22 --> 3406.02] Like maybe like a fifth to a third of the project is just obnoxious to work within.
[3406.02 --> 3411.26] But there is still 70 to 80% of it that is doing things correctly.
[3411.48 --> 3419.30] When you do a rewrite, you have to account for all those things that it does correctly and then replicate them and then also fix all those bugs.
[3419.50 --> 3428.34] So it's always going to take way, way, way, way, way longer to rewrite the thing than it is to fix the problems in the thing that exists.
[3428.80 --> 3430.88] So I think that's the thing that we have to account for.
[3430.88 --> 3437.34] And if you go into it and you do that math and you say, yep, nope, we want to rewrite because we have X, Y, and Z reasons why.
[3437.74 --> 3438.76] Sure, go ahead and go forth.
[3438.90 --> 3445.74] But if it's just like, here are some individual pain points that I don't like about this system and it's causing us to slow down some, let's rewrite the whole thing.
[3445.98 --> 3446.70] Like, absolutely not.
[3446.78 --> 3452.18] Like, you have to do like in-depth research and understanding of the project that you're dealing with before you can rewrite it.
[3452.22 --> 3456.30] Like, you should actually be able to rewrite it before you start rewriting it.
[3456.30 --> 3462.60] Which sounds like something that sounds super obvious when said, but is a thing that I have witnessed over and over and over again.
[3462.72 --> 3464.88] It's not something that we do as engineers in general.
[3465.62 --> 3470.54] Yeah, there's got to be some fundamental problem that requires like a complete greenfield rewrite.
[3470.74 --> 3473.48] It can't just be pain, which I think everyone's getting at.
[3473.74 --> 3475.08] But also, it shouldn't come from product.
[3475.20 --> 3481.24] It should be tech being like there's this technical roadblock that means, you know, we just cannot do this anymore.
[3481.24 --> 3490.66] Because, you know, if you want to, if you've got like this legacy code base and you just want to make it better and get there, there's ways that you can like boil things out too.
[3490.82 --> 3499.96] So, you know, if you can be like, well, we're going to move this small set of functionality to a new thing and piecemeal things out if you really want an entirely new code base versus improving it.
[3500.22 --> 3504.38] But again, that should be, I think, tech driven rather than coming from product.
[3504.38 --> 3514.32] If you can't come up with a way of conceivably actually retiring completely the thing that you're rewriting at the beginning of your rewrite, then you shouldn't do it.