[mrfredward]

>The initial development cost of software rounds to zero when compared to operating costs in perpetuity.

Mostly a good article, but what is with this quote? Aside from being factually wrong from a dollars and sense standpoint, doesn't it contradict their point that legacy code doesn't get enough love?

[stahnma]

Author here.

I don't think it's wrong in most (nearly all) cases. The cost of running software, keeping it updated, changing the HW it runs on, keeping it compliant, etc over time costs much more than the dev time to build it.

Unless your service is completely replaced every couple years, I'd venture operations cost more than development. (even if dev handles the ops).

The point of the statement is designing for operability helps with ownership and combats the "leave it in the corner and hope for the best" mentality.

[krisrm]

This seems like moving the goalposts though. "Much more" is not "rounds to zero". Software is just expensive, period - to build, and to maintain.

[kradroy]

I don't think it contradicts the point.

When you have a legacy system that "sits in the corner" earning money, you're [the company] paying engineers to retain their services in emergencies. Features get added too, if you're interested in keeping or gaining customers. So construction cost as a proportion of total cost does trend to zero.

The company/stockholders doesn't care about hot new technologies. They care about revenue. Customers don't care their software is written in this or that framework or is powered by deep learning. They care about stable, usable, useful apps. Businesspeople know this. Many engineers do not. I think that disconnect causes much strife in tech businesses.