<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Resetting the &#8216;Shitty&#8217; Counter</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.punchbarrel.com/2008/08/05/resetting-the-shitty-counter/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.punchbarrel.com/2008/08/05/resetting-the-shitty-counter/</link>
	<description>Frank Carver&#039;s musings about software and life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:26:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blog.punchbarrel.com/2008/08/05/resetting-the-shitty-counter/comment-page-1/#comment-98</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.punchbarrel.com/?p=236#comment-98</guid>
		<description>PS: I&#039;ve just had the same problem with my bath!

Change (in the form of mould) has ruined the appearance of the silicone around the side. It also leaks where it has rotted. Should I just “do up” where it is broken? That would fix the leaks but it would still look bad. Or should I reset the shitty counter, by doing it all (learning to use a mould resistant sealant)? 

Hm… decisions… In the end, I replaced all the bits you can see easily, and did up the bits you can’t. So this is a partial rewrite, with some &quot;refactoring&quot;, I guess. A bit of both.

Thinking back over the last few years, this is (more or less) the solution I always apply to software as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PS: I&#8217;ve just had the same problem with my bath!</p>
<p>Change (in the form of mould) has ruined the appearance of the silicone around the side. It also leaks where it has rotted. Should I just “do up” where it is broken? That would fix the leaks but it would still look bad. Or should I reset the shitty counter, by doing it all (learning to use a mould resistant sealant)? </p>
<p>Hm… decisions… In the end, I replaced all the bits you can see easily, and did up the bits you can’t. So this is a partial rewrite, with some &#8220;refactoring&#8221;, I guess. A bit of both.</p>
<p>Thinking back over the last few years, this is (more or less) the solution I always apply to software as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://blog.punchbarrel.com/2008/08/05/resetting-the-shitty-counter/comment-page-1/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:30:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.punchbarrel.com/?p=236#comment-96</guid>
		<description>I have some experience of this. In recent history (2004..2006) I rewrote half of a 60 KLOC project. The original version was too broken to analyse, but it had a handful of modules that could be reused intact.

Whether to refactor or rewrite depends mainly on one thing. If the original application has a recognisable architecture, with discernable boundaries between components, then refactor it, else rewrite it.

BUT: If the original application has a recognizable architecture, with discernable boundaries between components, there&#039;s probably no need to refactor it!

Steve</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have some experience of this. In recent history (2004..2006) I rewrote half of a 60 KLOC project. The original version was too broken to analyse, but it had a handful of modules that could be reused intact.</p>
<p>Whether to refactor or rewrite depends mainly on one thing. If the original application has a recognisable architecture, with discernable boundaries between components, then refactor it, else rewrite it.</p>
<p>BUT: If the original application has a recognizable architecture, with discernable boundaries between components, there&#8217;s probably no need to refactor it!</p>
<p>Steve</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.096 seconds -->
