Refactor Isn't Always the Right Answer

Introduction

I have to be honest with you. I am not perfect, and when I started my career, I did not know everything. As a junior engineer, I would look at old code, what we call legacy code, and think right away, "This is bad, we need to rewrite it all!" But now, after many years, I ask myself a different question: "Is this code really broken, or is it just ugly?" My own experiences have taught me that trying to make code perfect can sometimes take us away from what is most important, like helping the business and making customers happy.

Think about a system that handles customer orders every single day. The code looks messy, there are no good tests, different parts are connected too tightly, and it uses an old framework that no one likes anymore. Many engineers, especially the new ones who only know modern ways, say quickly that the code is terrible and we must start over. But here is the truth: this code has been working well for years. It processes thousands of orders without any big problems. It was made in a hurry back when the company needed it to work fast, even if it did not follow the best rules we have today.

In my opinion, the needs of the business are more important than using the latest fancy tricks in coding. If we spend too much time rewriting old code just to make it look nice, we make a mistake. This can delay new features that customers want, and it might even add new bugs that were not there before. I think we should only refactor when there is a real need. If the code is working fine and not hurting customers, it is better to make small improvements step by step, not a big rewrite all at once.

Why Business Needs Come First

I believe strongly that in software work, we must always think about the business first. Code is just a tool to help the company make money and serve people. If we get too focused on making everything clean and modern, we forget that. For example, I have seen teams spend months or even a year rewriting a system that was already doing its job perfectly. While they were busy with that, other companies were adding cool new features and getting more customers. In the end, the rewritten code might look better, but the business lost time and chances to grow.

A stable system that works, even if it is not pretty, brings real value. It keeps things running smoothly without surprises. On the other hand, a new, modern codebase that has not been tested much can cause problems. The goal of our work should be to support the business, not to make ourselves feel good about clean code. We engineers sometimes get excited about new tools and trends, but we need to remember that customers do not care about that. They care about a product that works well and gets better over time.

This idea comes from my own mistakes. Early in my career, I pushed hard for a big refactor on a project. We spent weeks on it, but in the end, it did not make things much better, and we missed deadlines for important updates. Now, I see that it is smarter to focus on what really matters.

Real-Life Examples

Let us look at a common situation to understand this better. Suppose a team wants to update their login system with a new framework that everyone is talking about. They spend six months or more building it from scratch. When they finally release it, users do not see any big changes. The login still works the same way. But now, there are new security problems that pop up, and the team has to fix them quickly. Meanwhile, other features that could have made the app more useful, like better search or faster payments, are put on hold because all the time went into the rewrite. This shows me that sometimes, the old system is better because it is proven and keeps the business safe.

I remember another example from a company I worked at. We had an old payment processing code that was not elegant. It had some hacks to make it work with different banks. A new engineer joined and said we must refactor it all to use a modern library. The team agreed, and we started the project. It took longer than we thought, about four months. During that time, a competitor launched a new payment feature that was faster and cheaper. Our customers started switching over. When we finished the refactor, our system was nicer, but we had lost market share. If we had just made small fixes to the old code, we could have added that new feature ourselves and kept our users happy.

Here is one more story. In a small startup, the core app was built quickly to get to market fast. The code was not great, with repeated parts and no good structure. But it handled user data without issues for two years. Then, investors wanted a "professional" codebase, so the team did a full rewrite. Halfway through, they found bugs in the new version that crashed the app during tests. The launch was delayed, and the startup ran out of money waiting. They could have survived if they stuck with incremental changes instead of trying to make everything perfect at once. These examples teach us that refactoring is not always the answer, especially when time and resources are limited.

Key Questions to Ask Before Refactoring

My views come from years of learning the hard way, making errors when I was new to the job. I have realized that it is not smart to chase every new trend or buzzword that sounds cool but does not really help. Things like "microservices" or "serverless" are great in some cases, but not always. Instead, before we jump into a big rewrite, we should stop and ask some important questions.

Here are the key ones: Is this code really causing problems for our users or the business right now? Will doing a complete rewrite bring true improvements, like faster speed or lower costs, or is it just to make us feel better about modern code? Can we make small changes little by little that keep the system stable without big risks? And are we using our time on things that actually help our customers, like new features they ask for?

Asking these questions helps us make better choices. Good engineering means solving real problems, not creating new ones. When a business has tight deadlines and tough competition, every hour matters. If we waste time on fancy code changes, we miss chances to build things that bring in more money and keep customers coming back. The main focus should be on delivering value and keeping everything stable.

Dealing with Technical Debt

Many engineers like to talk about technical debt and how important clean code is. I agree that technical debt is real, and having clean code is a good goal to have. It makes work easier in the long run. However, in the real world, even code that looks messy can be a strong and reliable part of the business. It keeps things running without stops, and that is what counts.

As I learned from my days as a junior, the push to follow the newest trends can sometimes lead to bad decisions. We might think that old code is holding us back, but often it is the foundation that made the company successful. Changing it without a good reason can hurt the project's future.

So, we need to balance things. Acknowledge the debt, but pay it off slowly while keeping the business moving forward.

Conclusion

To wrap up, I do like modern ways of coding and good design. They have their place. But I believe firmly that the needs of the business should always come first. A system that is stable and has worked well for the company should not be thrown out just because it does not fit the latest ideas. My experiences show that making small improvements over time is usually the smarter path for handling old systems. It is much more important to help the business grow and keep customers satisfied than to have code that looks perfect only on our computers. Remember, success comes from practical choices, not from chasing perfection.