When I wrote about the Broken Window Fallacy in Software Development a while back, it appears that there were a number of misunderstandings.

• First, there is a fundamental difference between the economic Broken Window Fallacy and the "ghetto-ization" that comes along with the sociological/psychological aspects of the Broken Windows Phenomenon. I've already covered that difference.
• Second - and much more importantly - that doesn't mean you should never rebuild something!

I simply believe that you should be selective in your choices.. Every day you spend rebuilding something that works is one day that your competition has to catch up or get ahead.

That said, there are a number of times where rebuilding might make sense... but consider it carefully. Before you do anything else, just STOP. Don't go any farther until you ask yourself one question: "What's the goal here?"

After my post last week on "The Broken Window Fallacy in Software", it was clear that there was a misunderstanding. In terms of Broken Windows, there are two types..

First, there's the Broken Window Fallacy which is an economic explanation which dates back to the 1850's. The principle idea - which I was building upon - is the concept that economic activity of any form is good for the economy as a whole. This completely ignores the fact that there are costs - often hidden - under any circumstances.

In the case of the Broken Window (or the "let's start fresh!" idea of software development), the primary actor in the situation loses control of their decision. They don't have the option of using the time/money/effort for something else, they must use it to return to the previous status quo.

Food for thought... If someone broke your window, it would be vandalism... what should we call it in software development?