...but Uncle Bob, what about applications that are written on an obsolete platform. Isn’t the only recourse a rewrite/port?

@Darrin If it ain’t broke…..

Joel Spolsky also wrote about this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

So has Chad Fowler: http://chadfowler.com/the-big-rewrite

””“Here’s the answer. Never.”””

Bullshido.

This grossly overlooks the fact that sometimes it is cheaper for a company to rewrite the code than it is to refactor it. If your coding team is taking 30 hours every week to understand what some functionality is doing, but they can rewrite the same functionality from scratch in only 15, the business is wasting 15 hours worth of wages and employee benefits in irrecoverable overhead.

To extend your analogy with real-world examples, sometimes it’s necessary to till a field over and over again until the soil is rich enough for new grass. Here’s another example: after a house is severely destroyed by its tennants (e.g., a bunch of punk teenagers throwing a party big enough to crack drywall and puke all over the carpets—yes this has happened to my family’s rentals in the past), it’s often cheaper to just tear down the walls and put up new drywall (sure it’s cheaper to patch the cracks in the short-term, but it devalues the property in the long run), rip out and lay down new carpets instead of cleaning spots you know will never come out, and junk the furniture in favor of new amenities.

You’re looking at this from a purely coding point of view, which is actually THE WORST POSSIBLE point of view to take. A business needs to control its costs, and if it’s cheaper to rewrite than to renovate, then by all means, do the rewrite.

It’s about time employees start thinking like company owners; criminy, that stock options you vest is there for a reason. It is in YOUR best interest to control costs—nobody in the upper eschelons of the company can do this better than you.

“Bullshido.”

Samuel, why does it take the coding team 30 hours to understand the functionality in the existing system but it’ll only take them 15 hours to recreate in a new system? Are you implying there’s a requirements or design document that explains it to them? If so, then wouldn’t they use that in understanding the existing system?

Samuel,

You have sorely missed the point. It appears to be cheaper to rewrite but seldom if ever is. The code that will take 15 hours to rewrite will again take 30 hours to refactor, and you will have waisted that 15 hours and had to spend the 30 any way. That means it cost you 45 hours to fix a problem that would have taken you 30 hours initially.

I know (from experience) that the green field development can look more promising and appear to be cheaper. I have advised companies into doing it. Every time it has been the failure that Uncle Bob describes.

The reason is that green field development (when there is an honest reduction in hours) is a short term patch at best is it does not solve the long term problems that lead to that redevelopment being needed.

Also your analogy assumes that all work other then redevelopment is halted. Which is not what Uncle Bob was saying. He was saying that you do not take that 30 hours of refactoring as a task unto and of itself, but rather refactor as you add new features and fix bugs. In this way you add one or two hours to each change but not more then that. The business should not feel the pain of the refactoring. If you do green field development the company will always feel the loss of money, time and ability to hit the market.

In short Green field development never takes business needs into account and only takes coder needs into account. If you are honestly concerned with the business needs and cash flow you do everything you can to not interrupt that cash flow while increasing it (by reduction of cost in maintenance).

Great post, Uncle Bob! I started to think how to avoid this kind of situation. If team cannot see what is waiting them behind the corner (mess – speculations of redesign etc). What are you remedies for developers and teams to notice that “we are falling into real mess” instead they notice that “we are in mess and deep”?

How about incrementally rewriting the system, one subsystem at a time, so that the application keeps running all the time? For example you move from one obsolete platform to a new platform by temporarily having the program in two parts which cooperate through a network/database/whatever. New functionality is always written on the new platform, and gradually the existing functionality of the old system is replaced by the new system. During the transition period the users need to run both the old and the new systems, until the new one can completely replace the old one.

I think it’s wrong to say we should never redesign. Consider the problem I face. I work mainly on a system implemented with Java/JDBC, but occasionally I need to add features to the legacy code written using C/Oracle ProC. The problem is that the old cold is a lot less efficient. It fetches a new connection for each file it processes and it does not take advantage of Oracle batching features so the database inserts are slow. The best term I have heard for this situation is at http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/TechnicalDebt.html. Martin refers to the problem as technical inflation, and in this case I think we would be better to rewrite this legacy code in Java. The problem is that the new programmers don’t understand C and Oracle ProC, the code is not exercised very often because the C code is hard to setup and test, and the processing takes more computing resources for each file it processes than its Java counterparts. The best time to work on this redesign is during the slack time that comes with new feature planning. The legacy code does not change at the same rate as the newer Java code, I would not expect to playing catch up with a changing target baseline. The longer the forces of technical inflation hurt us, the less competitive is our position and the more late nights and weekends we have to spend trying to work with code that is fragile, hard to test, and severely constrained by its aging platform.

I agree with uncle Bob in a way, but in my opinion it all comes down to system scalability/stability vs. resource/time and money, the team leads and the product team (stakeholders) need to agree on what is import and what should we focus on to continue with deploying new features at the same time working on defects, re-factoring, which may include redesigning the system if necessary.

And “IF” needs be and there is no way you can deliver/deploy features, which I doubt, unless you re-design the system, then it has to be redesigned in well tested pieces (blocks/modules/packages) that can be extended/maintained easily (less resources -> less money) without the need to re-design your recent design.

I have certainly been the guilty party for drum-banging redesign in my time. I really believed it was the right way forward.

• the team hated me. I now think rightly so, as well.
• the rewrite miserably failed. Some bits were a bit neater, but it didn’t work properly in the end.

There were many issues with this that Bob describes. There was moving target pressure from new features in the ‘mess’. There was also a ‘dont change’ pressure from needing to parse legacy data formats in disk files. Some files contained errors, and the ‘mess’ was cleverly written to overcome the problems. So some ‘clean’ algorithms just could never work. The exact requirements were impossible to reverse engineer.

There was an interesting comment above about a rewrite making business sense if it is cheaper to produce than the cost of maintaining the mess. One thing I have learned since 1982 is that projecting the cost of a software rewrite with any accuracy borders between very difficult to utterly impossible.

Given that the cost to rewrite cannot be known, this essentially reduces the business case to a gamble. But the other caveats Uncle Bob mentions still apply.

I would urge extreme reticence before deciding to ‘big-bang’ rewrite. It’s tempting, it’s personally satisfying, it seems like it is adding business value, and in theory it does.

But then, who do you think is going to be maintaining and extending the rewrite in your organisation, even supposing it is not canned (along with your credibility) before completion? It could be you – or the ‘mess maker’ team – or the latest graduate hire with limited experience – or some outsource company. The point is, these people will vary in how they approach your code from being ‘in line’ with your ideas … up to making ‘a worse mess’ in your opinion.

Our CTO has a very good take on this, and I’ve learned from him. Even the most intentional coding cannot explain all the motivations, rationale, and aspirations for a piece of software. You can see what was done, how it was done fairly well with clean code. But you can’t see why the alternatives were rejected. And that becomes a significant barrier to other maintainers no matter what you do.

As a result, I can only support this little ‘accept it; clean as you go’ philosophy. What goes around does indeed come around. Maybe you’ll even influence some mess makers along the way!

Not forgetting that there isn’t just one way to write good software … so one person’s ‘mess’ is another persons ‘excellent algorithm’ ...

It’s the forgotten requirements that are the biggest problem to actually being able to USE the software.

Everybody thinks that green field has all the requirements out there. Easy to see. But this is never true. And if you decide to rewrite rather than migrate, it will cause trouble.

Ironically, I’ve been hit by a much more subtle version of this. Not a rewrite, but development for many months on new stuff. No automated deploy, and every deploy having to be rolled back because of new bugs to existing functionality.

No one wanted to throw away the months of development. Including myself. But it made us unable to react to the business needs (can’t deploy). Finally we realized that we needed to get a automatic deploy of exactly what was in production (roll back the previous months) then move forward. Unfortunately, it took us 2 months to come to this conclusion.

2 months and 1 week later though, we were providing value to the users, something that hadn’t been done in the last 5 months.

Green field development needs to be at least as good (read same) as the previous before the investment pays off. so now it becomes a different question.

If i spend 30 hours this week that will be usable next week, is it cheaper than spending 15 hours that can’t be used till next year?

I strongly agree, and I’ve seen several stupid re-implementations myself. As far as “never” is concerned, it may be an acceptable approximation to the correct answer to the question, “when a redesign is the right strategy?” If you’re using a linear scale, that is. I’ll bet less than 5% of suggested redesigns are worthwhile, probably less than 1%, possibly less than .1%.

But it’s easy to find counterexamples on a small scale. It does happen sometimes that there is a new technology or design that cuts the amount of code required by an order of magnitude or more. In the days when Java was unstable and kept crashing frequently, I had responsibility for a program that monitored instances of a Java program and restarted them when they crashed. Once, in a flash of insight, I realized that it could be re-implemented in three lines of shell script: just start the program inside an eternal while loop.

I could have thought of that before. Or someone else could have. But we didn’t.

I hear what you’re saying, and I do agree that a rewrite is not needed in 99% of the time – developers have an urge to write things from the ground up instead of maintaining code.

But, I don’t think that a rewrite should NEVER be done. I’m currently involved in one of those new-SOA-rewrite-of-whole-business-which-would-make-us-much-cooler projects. Leaving aside the whole ‘SOA is dead stuff’, I think the need is quite obvious. We are working on an in-house process server and have hundreds of processes written in an in-house language (don’t ask). That language is, of course, weak, obscure, unknown to most of the staff and is the spawn of the devil. Do you really think that developers should keep learning that language for writing new processes and maintaining old ones instead of introducing a new process server and migrating those processes that are still maintained?

Agree technically, but in term of finance, it would be tough to ask for funding if don’t rewrite something :-)

Uncle Bob,

I’m going to have to tentatively suggest that your conclusion of “Here’s the answer. Never.” Should in fact be “Almost never.”

Your logic that a race condition will always result is inaccurate becase it is possible to freeze a legacy system (or subsystem) long enough to perform a rewrite. However, a rewrite will still fail if the underlying causes of the original mess are still in existence.

e.g. if the cause was a poor conception of the system’s goals and this was the only cause of the mess, a rewrite will fail unless this underlying cause is fixed. Frequently this means that someone other than the person(s) who sponsored the original system’s development must be replaced.

Successful rewrites
A heuristic for how to perform a successful rewrite would be as follows:

1. Determine all causes of original mess being developed
2. Fix all causes
3. Freeze system/subsystem
4. Rewrite

Correction:

“Frequently this means that someone other than the person(s) who sponsored the original system’s development must be replaced.”

should read:

“Frequently this means that the person(s) who sponsored the original system’s development must be replaced.”

I completely agree with the point about tidying your mess as you go along but sometimes the requirements of a system shift over time in such a way that a complete redesign ends up being cheaper and more robust in the long run.

I agree with Uncle Bob that rewriting from scratch is not a good idea. I see some comments on funding that I don’t understand. From what uncle bob writes, you don’t have to ask for funding. You write new features and you clean up while you are doing it.

We’re about to do a rewrite of a large, enterprise application.

Its written in .NET 1.1. very poorly by a handful of developers 6 years ago who were learning asp.net and programming (apparently) for the first time. There are bugs everywhere. There is data access in the code behind (User interface.) There are almost no objects. The database is a denormalized mess. Data integration from the clients office is done using DTS which makes changes almost impossible to version control or track and many of those DTS packages are horrendous because they copy data all over the place. There is a giant god object that does some of the data access. There are mountains of duplicated C# code and duplicated stored procedures.

Those developers are gone. We use domain objects and interfaces now. We use NHibernate, Dependency Injection, and domain driven design. We use TDD. We use MVC for our UI. We use layered architecture.

The application hardly ever receives changes or new functionality, other than bug fixes. The client has agreed to freeze functionality on the old site until this one is done.

Does it not make sense to do a rewrite in this case? Does it really make sense to hobble this thing gradually,= into something sort of coherent of the next 3-5 years, rather than to rewite it over the next 6 months to a year?

Great article!

What about Mozilla? Following the old structure would have been a mess.

Then again, I believe, they still use some parts from the old Mozilla (XUL engine maybe), so its not entirely rewrite, though from architecture point of view, it is.

How about if other companies write another browser then? The thing about browser back then was that IE was quite stagnant, so you don’t have to play catch up in terms of features. If they don’t rewrite, Google might have released their own browser in time (which is almost from scratch).

I guess its depends on how much of the old stuff that you could reuse, which also means reducing uncertainty, since those codes have been field tested and all. Given that, you could rewrite incrementally, cleaning parts by parts, provided your components are isolated enough.

I guess that is the direction of Mozilla until now. Maybe someone can confirm this.

Fadzlan,

If you read Joel Spolsky’s article against rewrites (more from a business owner perspective) from some years ago….he uses Mozilla as his example of why not to do a rewrite. Look at all the market share they lost while Netscape went dark.

I complete agree, however, I would like to offer up a different approach to possibly solving the same problem.

One idea that has come out of ThoughtWorks is that off a Strangler Application as documented by Martin Fowler. Instead of rewriting the existing code, you develop new features using new code in such a way that you slowly strangle the legacy code. The new code is created using the underlying integration points and ideas, but is implemented using new code. This allows you to slowly replace parts of the new system without having the problem of parallel development.

I’ve personally been involved in a successful greenfield rewrite. Granted, it was a small scale app (two developers, 18 months). This was right at the time .NET and C# first came out, so we had an ulterior motive to play with new dev toys while doing the rewrite. .NET had stuff that we needed already built in, that we would have had to write ourselves (or purchase third party components for) if we had stayed with the existing VB6 app.

So when I hear industry experts such as yourself and Spolsky proclaim that this is “never” a good idea, and will “always” end in “failure”, my BS alarm goes off. Then I get skeptical about other proclaimed “truths”, and wonder if they are also misguided and overstated opinions also.

Bob, Microsoft’s (I think green field) development of its NT architecture and subsequent migration of its customer base to it was painful and took several years, but it seems to me it was necessary so that Microsoft didn’t fall behind in the OS market. Do you think Microsoft should have stayed with their Windows 95-based architecture? In my mind, the Win95 to WinNT transition was one of those (rare, maybe) green field projects that succeeded.

The question is not whether or not they should have changed, but how they should have gone about it. And mind you, M$ is an unusual case because it’s not an issue whether they can afford to keep multiple systems running. They quit adding features to the old as they built the new to be feature complete, and it costs them about the amount Bill loses in the couch at night.

“Bullshido.”

If evolution took this tactic, you’d still be an amoeba.

Great post, can’t argue

Yes, and need to emphasize more that code doesn’t design and write itself—people write it. Same people rewriting will make same mess. New people rewriting will make new mess. Must help the people make less mess per functionality delivered or improved. Here’s a way:

http://talkaboutquality.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/product-quality-3-in-1/

Project ReDeSign has the major goal to develop new technologies and technology strategies enabling cable operators to migrate

ah ha ,it is really good! Here ,our PDF to BMP Converter will show you its main features and the easy-to use

steps that how to convert PDF to BMP. With PDF to BMB Converter, you will find that it is very simple to convert PDF to BMP.also

,you can try fdg

I wonder, how to avoid “BRISK” when company (after couple fusions) owns three similar but different legacy systems on obsolete platforms (MS VB6 + SQL, MS VFP + DBF, Clipper [do you remember?]). MS VFP and Clipper have no successors; MS VB6 is possible – with many difficulties – convert to MS VB.NET (my preferred way).

I’m frighten from preparation of “BRISK” to MS Silverlight…

Fantastic post. Your post was that great, keep it up.

I really like the work that has gone into making the post. I will be sure to tell my blog buddies about your content keep up the good work. Thanks

Thanks for sharing this nice information.

Just what I was looking for and quite thorough as well. Thanks for posting this, I saw a couple other similar posts but yours was the best so far. I hope it stays updated, take care.

Hmmm.. You make an interesting (and amusing) argument but sometimes I still believe that software can become so “messy” (for want of a better term) that only a complete rewrite from scratch can actually improve it radically. I think this is particularly the case where a program that was designed for one purpose or task has actually evolved (through the addition of countless modules of a period of time) into software that is actually doing something different to or on a much wider scale than the original purpose. In these cases rewriting with the new aim of the software as the focus can result in code that is faster, cleaner, more reliable and ultimately, more usable.

mean that if you have a huge legacy mess in your software you should stop

Thanks for sharing this nice information.

I’m not sure if i’m agreeing or not to be honest but i often find myself coding for days only to start all over again having learnt from my recent mistakes- it usually means a far cleaner program that doesn’t take that long to put together as all the mistakes were made in the first one

Website made here. I agree to do an analysis on the subject and start a huge amount of human beings to adhere to your blog.

my recent mistakes- it usually means a far cleaner program that doesn’t take that long to put together as all the mistakes were made in the first onedd

Nice site. Good stuff.

Website made here.

your initial website design may need to be frames based because you don’t have time to build an Ajax framework.

thank you for shatimg the post

Sometimes you need to redesign

a href=”http://www.taiwanmoldmaker.com/service-mold-maker.html”>Mold making is the core business of Intertech (Taiwan). With world level technology, Intertech enjoys a very good reputation for making Injection Mold and Plastic Moldsfor their worldwide customers.

Working on software is a very complicated job. If you are not sure better not to deal with it. child care jobs

I will definitely follow it, Thanks for all of your hard work and keep up the good work.

definitely love this article!

I think this is particularly the case where a program that was designed for one purpose or task has actually evolved (through the addition of countless modules of a period of time) into software that is actually doing something different to or on a much wider scale than the original purpose. In these cases rewriting with the new aim of the software as the focus can result in code that is faster, cleaner, more reliable and ultimately, more usable.

Thank you for such a good article.

Useful information will I follow your posts. Social Network

I have always lived by “if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” You can almost always salvage things, even if they are in bad shape.

Very interesting read!

It’s funny how we adopt words and adapt our lexicon to the times. This is a very useful slant on things.

This seems to be a very bad idea. I am not very sure but the spam comments must be deleted by a moderator.

Many thanks Uncle Bob.

internette görüntülü olarak okey oyunu oyna, gerçek kisilerle tanis, turnuva heyecanini yasa.

It is really a nice post, it is always great reading such posts, this post is good in regards of both knowledge as well as information. Very fascinating read, thanks for sharing this post here.

Thanks a lot you have a nice blogs :-)

Thank you for sharing information :-)

I really love reading your article. Thank you :-)

I really like your website its very informative Thank you :-)

This is beautiful, thank you so much.

Well, it looks very nice, very like. Do you like?

You will like them .We will offer you the most reasonable price and best service. Would you like it.

You will like them .We will offer you the most reasonable price and best service. Would you like it.

You will like them .We will offer you the most reasonable price and best service. Would you like it.

I have taken the metaphor too far. But the reality of the new projects is that they create the illusion that the disorder does not matter. this is an amazing blog.

trash cows all over the place. The herb is well known because it is clean and fresh virgin. Who cares about the occasional cow pie?

very cool blog ! i like the layout too ! keep up the good work !

If you return to 1974 it was three million, it is now over two billion. That represents 30% \.\. We have launched the new colour wave redesign of the range. Pearlfisher came up \.\. The rest is in the sky contributing to global warming. An organic farmer … jogos de motos

Canada Goose Outlet is Marmot 8000M Parka. The Marmot 8000M Parka is really a waterproof, breathable jacket with 800 fill canada goose jacket feathers. It truly is design and light colored shell is produced for trendy, but uncomplicated, protection from cold temperatures. Reinforced shoulders, elbows and adjustable waist and hem make the Marmot a perfect alternate for skiing and other outdoor sports that want fairly a bit of arm motion. The 8000M Parka weighs three lbs., comes in bonfire and black colours and might be stuffed and stored like a sleeping bag to your convenience.This is one of well-know and prime down jacket brands.Hope our friends like its!Like canada goose womens and Canada Goose Expedition Parka.There are wholesale canada goose.

I have just discovered this site and I just would like to give a huge two thumbs up for the great information you have here. I’ll be stopping by to your blog for more soon.

Natürlich bin ich sehr froh, Ihren Beitrag hier zu haben. Welches ist sehr informativ und ich möchte

sagen, dass seine lesenswert. Ich schätze Ihre Bemühungen

When it comes to feather dress, what appears in your mind? Which kind brand of down jacket do you like prefer? Though there are many down jackets for you to choose from, on the word, which one you really enjoy? I want to say that canada goose coats is really your best choice. I believe you can’t agree with me any more. When you take the quality into consideration, you will find that it is superior to any other kind of coat. Besides, discount canada goose jackets is a world well-known brand, which has gained high reputation in the world, which has accepted by our customers and some organization. Because of its high quality, some of our loyal customers have promoted it to the people around them. In their opinion, it is good to informing others to know it. Recently, Canada Goose Trillium Parka is on hot sale. What I have to inform you is that all the products there are made by hand, so they are elaborative and elegant enough. It is really beautiful once you dress in. So, if you are a lovely girl or woman, go to the store to buy one for you. You will appreciate it that you have such a coat.In addition, they also have any other products like canada goose Gloves and canada goose jacket supplier.Hope your will like its!

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar You pays your money and you takes your choice Youth is wasted on the young

????? ??? ?????? super-vuitton.com??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

fashion like you need it: make fashion trends work for you, get fashion on a budget, dress for your body and look great for special occasions. Also, dig deeper into the work of fashion designers and steal fashion tips from celebrities.

I have just discovered this site and I just would like to give a huge two thumbs up for the great information you have here. I’ll be stopping by to your blog for more soon.

The professional design make you foot more comfortable. Even more tantalizing,this pattern make your legs look as long as you can,it will make you looked more attractive.Moveover,it has reasonable price.If you are a popular woman,do not miss it.

Technical details of Christian Louboutin Velours Scrunch Suede Boots Coffee:

Color: Coffee
Material: Suede
4(100mm) heel
Signature red sole x

Fashion, delicate, luxurious Christian louboutins shoes on sale, one of its series is Christian Louboutin Tall Boots, is urbanism collocation. This Christian louboutins shoes design makes people new and refreshing. Red soles shoes is personality, your charm will be wonderful performance.

???????????????????????????????????????????? 1 ???????;????????;100 ???? 1 ??????? ??? 1 ???????????? ???????? ???: http://www.brand-kopi.com

??????????????????????????????????Ramillon????????????????1???????Tergal??Ramillon???????????????????????????(?)????? ?????:http://www.moncler-off.com/

I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. I’ve bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.

This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource

Very nice read indeed

I am really enjoying reading your well written articles.

Any other way I’ll be registering to your feed and that i we do hope you publish again soon

Bonjour! Super Newsblog! Info Website Fatburner Ergänzungen wirken unterstützend beim gesunden Abbau von Depotfett! Vielen Dank!

against rewrites (more from a business owner perspective) from some years ago….he uses Mozilla as his example of why not to do a

Thanks for the information, I’ll visit the site again to get update information Toys

The Big Redesign In The Sky 93 good post127

The Big Redesign In The Sky 94 hoo,good article!!I like the post!102

When it comes to feather dress, what appears in your mind? Which kind brand of down jacket do you like prefer? brandbag-jpThough there are many down jackets for you to choose from, on the word, which one you really enjoy?lvtokyo

Intertech Machinery Inc. provides the most precise Plastic Injection Mold and Rubber Molds from Taiwan. With applying excellent unscrewing device in molds,

Intertech is also very professional for making flip top Cap Molds in the world. Mold making is the core business of Intertech (Taiwan). With world level technology, Intertech enjoys a very good reputation for making Injection Mold and Plastic Molds for their worldwide customers.

The fact that people are still commenting on this page 3 years later tells me it’s still relevant and useful.

I really feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If doable, as you acquire experience, would you thoughts updating your weblog with further data ? It is extremely useful for me.

With more than 20 years of experience, Intertech provides an extensive integrated operational ability from design to production of molds 100% made in Taiwan. Additional to our own mold making factory, we also cooperate with our team vendors to form a very strong working force in Taiwan.

For the overseas market, we work very closely with local representatives in order to take care of the technical communication and after-sales service to our customers. We also participate in the EUROMOLD & FAKUMA exhibitions and meet our customers every year in Europe. By concentrating on mold “niche markets”, we play a very useful mold maker role from the Far East whenever customers want to develop their new projects. We provide services from A to Z to our customers on a very economic cost and effect basis.

http://www.outfitscosplay.com/cosplay-wigs/fairy-tail-cosplay-wig Deluxe Fairy Tail Cosplay Wig for Sale.Find your favorite characters and cosplay outfits from all the popular anime and games.

It is really excellent stuff. I really enjoying your article. It is really best technology for making flip.

Intertech Machinery Inc.

With more than 25 years of experience, Intertech provides an extensive integrated operational ability from design to production of molds 100% made in Taiwan. Additional to our own mold making factory, we also cooperate with our team vendors to form a very strong working force in Taiwan.

Main Products:

Injection Mold, Silicone Molding, Rubber Mold, Silicone molding, PC High-Gloss Plastic Mold, Die Casting Mold, Silicone Mold, Silicone Rubber Mold, Liquid Silicone Rubber , Cosmetic Packaging Mold, Medical Products Mold, Engineering Plastic Molds, Home Appliances Mold, etc…

It is the fashionable life era, to platform christian louboutin take a leisure time or always to Christian Louboutin decollete pumps be a workaholic. The tips lead you Christian Louboutin red sole shoes a fashionable and comfortable life style.