Hey,
Like any significant codebase with a long development history, there are
remnants of design choices and experiments that are no longer in use, and some areas of code are in need of modernization. However, at its core is a large amount of highly functional, secure, performant code, capable of supporting a robust platform through the use of extensions and hooks. There is also a great amount of flexibility to adapt to new requirements.
This makes it sound like the MediaWiki codebase is pretty well designed. That is in stark contrast to my view, which is that it is a typical big ball of mud with serious pervasive issues too numerous to list. So I'm curious how you arrived at your view.
...
The stated goals and lineup strike me as very WMF, and something I've seen often enough before. What makes you think the results will not be poor leadership and disastrous technical results (in my estimation costing WMF many millions of USD) like in the past? What will be different this time?
Cheers
-- Jeroen De Dauw | https://entropywins.wtf | https://keybase.io/jeroendedauw Software craftsmanship advocate ~=[,,_,,]:3