This week I am writing a feature for a newly launched website devoted to cloud computing pros. My subject matter in hand is legacy applications and their potential migration to the cloud.
Interestingly, when I asked openly for some industry feedback on this subject I got more than I could eat by a magnitude of roughly 10 times.
This "content overload" is because:
a) new websites are sexy and companies want to be seen on them
b) PR companies want clients to be seen anywhere & everywhere, whatever
c) cloud computing is super hot and every IT vendor has to have a public stance on it
or d) it's a real world IT issue that we should all be more concerned with...
Or is it all of the above?
Anyway - two of the most interesting things I read on legacy apps (in relation to how we should view them) are the following teasers:
i) Legacy applications need not be old, cranky and ungainly - they are still in use after all! So this (you could argue) means that this is quite simply SOFTWARE THAT STILL WORKS.
... or if you were very snide and cynical; this is software that ACTUALLY works - given that so much of it is argued to be badly delivered.
i) Forget old, cranky and ungainly - legacy applications need not even be old. We should think differently. Windows 95 running that year's version of Excel is a legacy app - but so is Windows 7 running last week's company database on Excel without that latest Microsoft Service Pack update.
I'll say it one more time. The term "legacy" implies negativity in technology-centric circles and, as it stands, does not convey a robust application's true worth.
Perhaps we should use a term that suggests heritage, robustness and strength and call them LONGEVITY applications?
Do I have any takers?