zlacker

> "just do the parts of it we actually use".

25 years here. You can absolutely do this. Most software is orders of magnitude more complex than it needs to be.

The junior programmer you are talking about who wanted to rewrite it in a weekend tends to come back with a working program, not empty handed.

>>ground+(OP)
Yes, I didn't really doubt the developer could do it, the problems are:

1. That's not a great use of the developer's time, and

2. anything in-house increases our training and support costs

>>ground+(OP)
I've seen this happen with both juniors and seniors. They do come back with a working solution /for the happy path/. Because the happy path is easy. It turns out that most of the complexity sits in the unhappy paths.

>>bandra+b7
And both are completely different arguments then your original post.

>>alphag+F8
I still don’t agree. The trick to good design is getting more things on the happy path. Most of the software I use is small and constructed in this manner.

>>ground+le
No, those are the two main reasons management don't want to have internal systems belong to them

>>bandra+zo
I see. I misread. My mistake. I agree - the issue is not technical it’s the responsibility for the project.