<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>The Equity Kicker - Latest Comments in Why you should almost never re-write your software</title><link>http://theequitykicker.disqus.com/</link><description>Nic Brisbourne’s view from London on venture capital and exploiting change in technology and media</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:27:44 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Why you should almost never re-write your software</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/04/08/why-you-should-almost-never-re-write-your-software/#comment-4456065</link><description>We're going through some of these issues at ProofHQ now.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;We threw away the first couple of prototypes, but from the point we created a fully working application we have only refactored.  New API, new permissions engine, etc.  The temptation is to go for the big rebuild, and that pressure is ground-up from the development team.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Mat</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:27:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why you should almost never re-write your software</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/04/08/why-you-should-almost-never-re-write-your-software/#comment-4456064</link><description>Agreed, but it depends what you mean by the "first one".  For example, what's the harm in throwing away a prototype that only took 2 weeks to make?  The advantage (and it's a massive advantage) to this approach is that it means you can get something "out there" and learn what users really want - which is often completely different to what even experienced startup founders might expect.  What's the point of keeping the first one if no one likes it?  You'd be flogging a dead horse.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I'd go further to say that this is one of the advantages of having a startup, especially in this space where costs can be extremely low; the option to throw something out there and completely rebuild after a couple of weeks/months, if it's not getting traction, is a great thing.  And it needs to be stressed that for many readers of Nic's blog (including me) the concept of a startup is a few people bootstrapping some ideas in a garage, so I would question what "risk" actually means in reality for these people.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;However, I'm straying off the point of the original post.  I'd definitely agree with anyone who says that rebuilding a live web app (with lots of users and/or lots of revenue) from scratch is a difficult and often - but not always - wrong thing to do.  But even then, if your re-build enables you to jump tracks onto a better revenue stream and faster growth then it needn't be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jof Arnold</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:10:34 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why you should almost never re-write your software</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/04/08/why-you-should-almost-never-re-write-your-software/#comment-4456063</link><description>Nic:  Thanks for the reference to the OnStartups article.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Jof:  I am a fan of Brooks myself.  However, I think the "throw the first one away" as a general rule is risky -- particularly for startups.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Though ideally, you'd have the time to start over and throw the first one away, we don't live in an ideal world.  Even though in the long-term, throwing the first one away might be a good idea, you have to *survive* the short-term for the long-term to ever matter.  For big companies where the long-term is a given, this might be ok.  For startups, when resources are severely limited, it's not an easy decision.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dharmesh Shah</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:16:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why you should almost never re-write your software</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/04/08/why-you-should-almost-never-re-write-your-software/#comment-4456062</link><description>All pretty sound points - especially the one about annoying your customers.  However, I think the exception is well spelled-out by Brook: "software is like waffles: throw the first one away"... so with that in mind I'm applying the principles above to any software version other than the first one.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jof Arnold</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:41:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Why you should almost never re-write your software</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2008/04/08/why-you-should-almost-never-re-write-your-software/#comment-4456061</link><description>We're refactoring some code at the moment, in parallel to implementing revised parts of the site as we go. New build delivery time frequency slows a bit, but we can still add and change bits if urgent - much preferred to 'closed for refurbishment'. Features + Cleanup + bigger load handling - do hate the "chuck money at server bottleneck" approach.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">paulpod</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:06:06 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>