Some months ago, my boss asked me to add a feature to an unfamiliar source code written and maintained for a long time by another team, and I knew from one of my teammates who had resigned that its structure is overcomplicated and the code is outdated(library, framework, and language) and I myself reviewed that and disliked that also.
He treated it as a heritage and he had never reviewed it himself. I told him that I would spend more time navigating around the code(I didn't know tools like Sourcetrail at that time) than recreating the wheel myself. He agreed but looked unhappy.
Recently I read an article: How to hire senior developers: Give them more autonomy and learned from it that
One of Naur’s main conclusions is that making changes to an existing program (to accommodate changing requirements) is often more costly than writing new code from scratch, at least if done by people from a different team. This is because there are intangible aspects of the model/theory in the programmer’s heads, which can’t be expressed in code and documentation:
“A main claim of the Theory Building View of programming is that an essential part of any program, the theory of it, is something that could not be conceivably expressed, but is inextricably bound to human beings.”
Then I wonder if I was right? Can I just show this article to a boss in a similar situation in the future?