The definition of legacy code is ambiguous enough. We generally mean "bad code" (the wrong definition to me...). What about seeing things differently and trying to leave a great legacy behind us?

I'm using the term regularly when dealing with legacy code. Finally remembered when I saw it first.

Good advice to work with large legacy code bases. You better know it very well before you make large changes to it.

This is a good view of what you're getting into with the "rewrite it in Rust" knee-jerk reaction.

OK, definitely a gutsy move... Still this is an interesting approach for a complex system. Better have a controlled early failure if you can get it, than a complete collapse later on. This might be just the incentive you need for real organizational change.

Very good rant which explains nicely why rewriting some software from scratch is almost never the right answer.

Interesting exploration on the amount of legacy a platform can accumulate over time.