Legacy Code Preservation: What's the Story?
Wind back the clock to the late 1970's. Yes, there were computers in those days.
Some of my earliest billable gigs where conversions from old OS to new OS. (Specifically DOS/VSE to OS/370, now called Z/OS.) Back when a company owned exactly one computer, all of the in-house customized software had to be rewritten as part of the conversion.
For the most part, this was part of a corporate evolution from an IBM 360-series to 370-series computer. That included revisions of the operating system toward OS/370.
A company's custom software often encoded deep knowledge of business operations. Indeed, back in the day before desktop computers, that software was the business. There was no manual fallback if the one-and-only computer didn't work. Consequently, the entire IT department could be focused on converting the software from old operating system to new.
Every line of code was carefully preserved.
Not all software encoded uniquely valuable knowledge, however.
FlashbackIn the days before relational databases, all data was in files. File access required a program. Often a customized piece of programming to extract or transform a file's content.
In old flat-file systems, programs would do the essential add-change-delete operation on a "master" file. In some cases programs would operate on multiple "master" files.
In this specific conversion effort, one program did a kind of join between two files. In effect, it was something like:
SELECT * FROM BIG_TABLE JOIN OTHER_TABLE ON BIG_TABLE.CODE = OTHER_TABLE.CODE ...
What's interesting about this is the relative cost of access to OTHER_TABLE.
A small subset of OTHER_TABLE rows counts for most of the rows that join with BIG_TABLE. The rest of OTHER_TABLE rows were referenced once or a very few times in BIG_TABLE.
Clearly, a cache of the highly-used rows of OTHER_TABLE has a huge performance benefit. The question is, of course, what's the optimal cache from OTHER_TABLE? What keys in OTHER_TABLE are most used in BIG_TABLE?
Modern databases handle this caching seamlessly, silently and automatically. Back in the 70's, we had to tailor this cache to optimize performance on a computer that---by modern standards---was very small and slow.
The Code BaseIn the course of the conversion, I was assigned a script ("JCL" is what they called a shell script on Z/OS) that ran two programs and some utility sort steps. Specifically, the sequence of programs did the following:
SELECT CODE, COUNT(*) FROM BIG_TABLE GROUP BY CODE ORDER BY 2Really? Two largish programs and two utility sort steps for the above bit of SQL?
Yes. In the days before SQL, the above kind of process was a rather complex extract from BIG_TABLE to get all the codes used. That file could be sorted into order by the codes. The codes could then be reduced to counts. The final reduction was then sorted into order by popularity.
This program did not encode "business knowledge." It's purely technical.
At the time, SQL was not the kind of commodity knowledge it is today. There was no easy way to articulate the fact that the program was purely technical and didn't encode something interesting. However, I eventually made the case that this pair of programs and sorts could be replaced with something simpler (and faster.)
I wrote a program that used a data structure like a Python defaultdict (or a Java TreeMap) and did the operation in one swoop.
Something like the following:
from collections import defaultdict counts= defaultdict( int ) total= 0 with read( "big_table" ) as source: reader= BigTable_iter( source ) for row in reader: counts[row.code] += 1 total += 1 by_count= defaultdict( list ) for code,count in counts.items(): by_count[count].append( code ) for frequency in sorted( by_count, reverse=True ): print( by_count[frequency] ) def BigTable_iter( source ): for line in source: yield BigTable( line[field0.start:field0:end], etc. )
Except, I did it in COBOL, so the code was much, much longer.
PreservationThis is one end of the spectrum of legacy code preservation.
What was preserved?
Not business knowledge, certainly.
What this example shows is that there are several kinds of software.
- Unique features of the business, or company or industry.
- Purely technical features of the implementation.