| > If you’re doing the same exact thing 5 years later (let alone 10 or even 20) without any tweaks in your process, then frankly you have a job a robot should be doing. Banks and insurance companies tends to disagree with you. Maintaining software is just like maintaining buildings, if you don't they fall apart, but mainly it's just about checking that everything is still the same it was when it was built. You don't change elevators in a building just because the old model is not supported anymore. There's no conceot of "not maintained anymore" for elevators. So maybe the poster was trolling, but it is true that you cannot rely on Macs if your software has a predicted life span longer than a couple of years. > Business needs change Again, many established businesses work because they don't change much over time. They just keep doing what they do best. > that code should’ve been updated. That code worked, why in the hell risking to introduce new bugs? I worked on software packages made by millions of lines, you don't just update them because your supplier won't bother supporting your workflow for at least 10 years. Even Github, a modern fast changing company, was running on Rails 3.2 that was released in 2012 until September 2018, they switched to 5.2 and it took a tech company with some of the smartest engineers around and Rails contributors one year and a half. |