Fair question, I suppose I didn't express myself clearly.
Firstly, I'd like to abolish the idea that "greenfield" and existing are somehow opposites. Greenfield projects take on a bunch of existing abstractions and complexities from all the stuff they are built on. Instead, these two terms are actually very similar, "greenfield" projects just chose to throw out one more layer than using the existing system. My argument here is that the dichotomy here is false, and that the two terms are instead a classification of degrees to which you abandon existing abstractions.
As I said, I understand that this is what you mean when you say greenfield, I'm not asking you to use different words. I'm asking you to pay notice that this is what you are saying. That you are explicitly not in a "green field" with nothing around you. You've thrown all the furniture out, but the building is still there, the walls are still the same color, and the windows are still overlooking the same parking lot.
Firstly, I'd like to abolish the idea that "greenfield" and existing are somehow opposites. Greenfield projects take on a bunch of existing abstractions and complexities from all the stuff they are built on. Instead, these two terms are actually very similar, "greenfield" projects just chose to throw out one more layer than using the existing system. My argument here is that the dichotomy here is false, and that the two terms are instead a classification of degrees to which you abandon existing abstractions.
As I said, I understand that this is what you mean when you say greenfield, I'm not asking you to use different words. I'm asking you to pay notice that this is what you are saying. That you are explicitly not in a "green field" with nothing around you. You've thrown all the furniture out, but the building is still there, the walls are still the same color, and the windows are still overlooking the same parking lot.