alt Hacker NewsThere's this notion of software maintenance - that software which serves a purpose must be perennially updated and changed - which is a huge, rancid fallacy. If the software tool performs the task it's designed to perform, and the user gets utility out of it, it doesn't matter if the software is a decade old and hasn't been updated.
Sometimes it might, if there are security implications. You might need to fix bugs in networking code, or update crypto handling, or whatever, and those types of things are fine. The idea that you can't have legitimately useful one-off software, used by millions, despite not being updated, is a silly artifact of the MBA takeover of big tech.
Continuous development is not intrinsic to the "goodness" of software. Sometimes it's a big disappointment if software hasn't been updated consistently, but other times, it just doesnt matter. I've got scripts, little apps, tools, things that I've used, sometimes daily, for over a decade, that never ever ever get updated, and I'd be annoyed if I had to. They have simple tasks to perform that they do well; you dont need all the rest of the "and now we have liquid glass icons! oh, and mandatory telemetry, and if you want ads to go away, you must pay for a premium subscription"
The value is in the utility - the work done by the software. How much effort and maintenance goes into creating it often has nothing to do with how useful it is.
Look at windows 11 - hundreds of billions of dollars and years of development and maintenance and it's a steaming pile of horseshit. They're driving people to Linux in record numbers.
Blender is a counter example. They're constructive and deliberate.
What's likely to happen is everyone will have AI access to built-on-the-fly apps and tools that they retain for future use, and platforms will consolidate and optimize the available tools, and nobody will need to vibe-code or engage in extensive software development when their AI butler can do all the software work they might need done.
Replies
Sure, but the reason why this is the case is simple: writing software is easy. Writing good software is stupendously hard. So all those manyears that went into maintaining software were effectively just hardening, polishing bug fixes and slow adjustment to changing requirements and new situations. If you throw it all out whenever the requirements change you never and up with something that is secure or as bug free as you can make it.
> There's this notion of software maintenance - that software which serves a purpose must be perennially updated and changed - which is a huge, rancid fallacy. If the software tool performs the task it's designed to perform, and the user gets utility out of it, it doesn't matter if the software is a decade old and hasn't been updated.
If what you are saying is that _maintenance_ is not the same as feature updates and changes, then I agree. If you are literally saying that you think software, once released, doesn't ever need any further changes for maintenance rather than feature reasons, I disagree.
For instance, you mention "security implications," but as a "might" not "will." I think this vastly underestimates security issues inherent in software. I'd go so far say that all software has two categories of security issues -- those that known today, and those that will be uncovered in the future.
Then there's the issue of the runtime environment changing. If it's web-based, changing browser capabilities, for instance. Or APIs it called changing or breaking. Etc.
Software may not be physical, but it's subject to entropy as much as roads, rails, and other good and infrastructure out in the non-digital world.