<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sometimes you are truly better off starting from scratch</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.arc90.com/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.arc90.com/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/</link>
	<description>Web Application Design &#38; Development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 03:55:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://blog.arc90.com/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/#comment-346</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:04:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.daniell.acr90-dev-02/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/#comment-346</guid>
		<description>I think the value of writing your own solution, even if it&#039;s inspired by that of others, is that you as the developer really internalizes the solution (your #5 above.)  This shows itself, and usually pays huge dividends, when some of your other points come into play, namely looking for bugs later, trying to add a new feature or scaling the app.  One other point is that an existing implementation often isn&#039;t written in the same style as yours, or that of your company (therefore making maintenance on it later again more difficult.)
There are certainly places where off-the-shelf or borrowed code can pay-off in a big way, but in a strategic area that I&#039;m committing to long-term, I generally prefer the developers that are going to have to maintain the code to have written it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the value of writing your own solution, even if it&#8217;s inspired by that of others, is that you as the developer really internalizes the solution (your #5 above.)  This shows itself, and usually pays huge dividends, when some of your other points come into play, namely looking for bugs later, trying to add a new feature or scaling the app.  One other point is that an existing implementation often isn&#8217;t written in the same style as yours, or that of your company (therefore making maintenance on it later again more difficult.)<br />
There are certainly places where off-the-shelf or borrowed code can pay-off in a big way, but in a strategic area that I&#8217;m committing to long-term, I generally prefer the developers that are going to have to maintain the code to have written it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Avi Flax</title>
		<link>http://blog.arc90.com/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/#comment-345</link>
		<dc:creator>Avi Flax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:08:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.daniell.acr90-dev-02/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/#comment-345</guid>
		<description>Chris, that&#039;s an interesting example. Sure, the new codebase that Netscape developed turned out to be quite good, and quite valuable - but &lt;em&gt;it didn&#039;t save the company&lt;/em&gt;.
Also, I&#039;m not sure the question of &quot;rewrite or refine?&quot; is directly applicable to Joel&#039;s post, which is more about &quot;use an existing implementation or roll your own?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris, that&#8217;s an interesting example. Sure, the new codebase that Netscape developed turned out to be quite good, and quite valuable &#8211; but <em>it didn&#8217;t save the company</em>.<br />
Also, I&#8217;m not sure the question of &#8220;rewrite or refine?&#8221; is directly applicable to Joel&#8217;s post, which is more about &#8220;use an existing implementation or roll your own?&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris D</title>
		<link>http://blog.arc90.com/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/#comment-344</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.daniell.acr90-dev-02/2007/08/06/sometimes-you-are-truly-better-off-starting-from-scratch/#comment-344</guid>
		<description>Great post, Joel. I agree completely, &lt;em&gt;especially&lt;/em&gt; when it comes to an area like web development, where codebases are usually not monolithic monstrosities.
I&#039;d also like to point out a place where Joel Spolsky disagreed with you, and later showed himself to be a little off the mark: in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Things You Should Never Do, Part I&quot;&lt;/a&gt; (written April 6, 2000), he tears into Netscape for rewriting it&#039;s browser after netscape 4.75 - calling it the &#039;single worst strategic mistake&#039; a company could make.
Of course, we know that after a while, the mozilla suite became pared down into one of the best browsers around, Firefox, and although I can&#039;t see alternate realities, I doubt it would be as popular if they had stuck with the Netscape 4.75 codebase and built off of it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great post, Joel. I agree completely, <em>especially</em> when it comes to an area like web development, where codebases are usually not monolithic monstrosities.<br />
I&#8217;d also like to point out a place where Joel Spolsky disagreed with you, and later showed himself to be a little off the mark: in <a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Things You Should Never Do, Part I&#8221;</a> (written April 6, 2000), he tears into Netscape for rewriting it&#8217;s browser after netscape 4.75 &#8211; calling it the &#8216;single worst strategic mistake&#8217; a company could make.<br />
Of course, we know that after a while, the mozilla suite became pared down into one of the best browsers around, Firefox, and although I can&#8217;t see alternate realities, I doubt it would be as popular if they had stuck with the Netscape 4.75 codebase and built off of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

