> which is apt, as it's a classic mistake

Was.

Look at it as a house (which already exists). There will be defects. Some big, some small. Some obvious, some hidden.

Maybe the exterior looks bad, but the interior is fine. Give it a paintjob.

Maybe it could use a new kitchen but otherwise it's fine. Do the kitchen.

Maybe it's fine but the family living in it could use some storage space. Add an extension or put up a shed.

Or maybe its foundations are crumbling, walls are cracked, roof is leaking everywhere, doors are slanted, and thieves ripped out all the copper piping. Tear it down & rebuild (developers seem to prefer this option).

But your job is not to follow the same approach wherever you go. It's to have a good look around, get a feel for the place, and decide what should stay & what needs fixing.

That can include fundamental design aspects. Why was it built that way? Is it time to port to a new platform?

Joel Spolsky wasn't wrong either. Re-developing a sizeable project is a big job, and comes with significant risk for its users. But the metrics have changed.

LLMs have reduced the cost of rebuilding a lot. Not the risks. Choose wisely.