I was thinking of doing something like that, but how does it work for the company in the end? If they vibe coded their project and now have shitty code full of bugs, you come in, fix the bugs and organize the code better and that's it? How do they continue to maintain it if they didn't have the knowledge to set it up in the first place?
They would try to hire and/or build the team they need to move forward, if they have the money.
Knowledge is usually not the problem, it is the shortcuts(or short-term decisions) that got them to a place where they can no longer operate the platform they need to survive. Often this is the cause of prioritizing velocity over anything and everything else. This is choosing the do it fast and do it cheap options with the assumption that it is always correct. That assumption of course is almost never true.
By the way, most cases where I've seen this there's usually an investor involved and they need to impress them.
The pattern I've seen repeatedly in real life is that a company does something they don't expect to be important and impactful, cutting every corner they possibly can to shovel out something that minimally meets the requirements. And then that software surprises everyone by actually being wildly successful, and now they have to support it and modify it to a state where they can build upon it. Which might be hard if the product is an unholy mess made by people who knew little of what they were doing and cared about it exactly as much as they got paid for it (that is, not much).
And cutting every corner to get the cheapest possible product out might not have even been the wrong call! Presumably most things made this way fare just as well as they were expected to and die quickly after being made, not spending scarce resources on making them better was probably the right thing to do.
It just sucks when you end up having to maintain strict backwards compatibility to something that was made in two weeks by one guy who took every shortcut on the way to duct-tape together something that technically does what was asked for. (Yes I'm thinking of you, javascript.)
This. Based on what I have seen so far in my company so very anecdotal.
Assuming they know and/or have the capability to do it, between the cost of correcting the issue and push to use AI into everything meaning raising any issue now, politically speaking, is a direct criticism of someone major VP pet projects. I personally simply started to log stuff.
The first thing they need to do first is acknowledge there is a problem to begin with. I am so glad I am not an actual programmer though. It would drive me nuts.
There's definitely a lot of politics involved in such projects. So I've learned that a break is necessary between major engagements to decrease the risk of burnout.
The environment that creates "rescue" projects is usually not one where long term thinking is prevalent. It would be a pet project of someone who's still there or someone who left but where the ultimate decision maker is still there. Either case, you need to walk on egg-shells and be mindful that dealing with the technology problems is the easiest part of such an engagement. I'm not ashamed to admit that I've learned that lesson the hard way.
That's a good question that I sometimes ask myself. But if you want the money, you have to do what it takes. There's a limit of course and lines that I do not cross(illegal, unethical etc). There were plenty of times where I had to say that this is not going to work and chose to end the relationship with a handover. During those times, the technology wasn't the problem.
I think if they are interested on fixing it it's because the project provide business value, so then now it's worth it to build the software development team or make a contract with software development agency
