[BlargMcLarg]

> Code where the project manager didn't believe in encapsulation, or refactoring, or none of that "architectural nonsense"

If anything I find the largest proponents to have drunk too deep from that well and cause the rewrites to never be considered, as the time required to do it becomes far too long to be worth the pay-out.

This excludes the worst kind: the overarchitectured old mess in need of a rewrite as it was based on the wrong assumptions and is now boggled down by 10 layers of abstractions and indirection which don't do anything.

[BigJono]

It depends on the level of the architecture. Architecture that splits the project into chunks that you can take a meat cleaver to and refactor at will is great. "Architecture" that takes one of those chunks and adds 15 abstractions to it is awful.

The former lets you recover from the latter without a full rewrite, which I'm guessing is where advice like "never rewrite" comes from.

Posts that are pro/anti 'architecture' could refer to either, so I never know whether to agree with them or not. They're kinda meaningless out of context.