[maerF0x0]

> to survive long enough to be inherited by someone other than its original author.

survival is far too low of a bar. We want delighted customers, low churn on employees, low minimum bar of required IQ to understand it (easier hiring, less stress), inexpensive modifications + improvements.

Survival is only sufficient for cash strapped startups on borrowed time&money because if survival fails, then the future no longer matters.

But as soon as the future seems probable there is _much much_ better aims than just surviving.

[barking_biscuit]

>survival is far too low of a bar

Correct. I sometimes invite coworkers to partake in a thought experiment where they anthropomorphize the company (and/or codebase) they work at imagining, if it were a person, what state of health would it be in? This usually engenders a chuckle or two of some sort as they picture someone whom, though they are surviving, is otherwise in seriously poor health and does well to illustrate to them that if they were this individual they would likely be striving to significantly improve their quality of life and not just merely maintain status-quo of still having a pulse being the measure of success.

[oumua_don17]

>> soon as the future seems probable

The next target then is acquisition or an IPO which is then followed up by quarterly earnings. It’s always survival first unfortunately

[maerF0x0]

Yes, I agree survival is the bottom layer on the Corporate maslow's but what I'm pointing out is that a pure focus on survival in the ways that are common in tech companies these days (largely informed by cargo culting SV startups) actually will negate the possibility of future survival. Customer churn is more expensive than doing a feature well, no velocity on roadmap is death but also rapidly inevitable if pains aren't taken to ensure the code is "good code"