[rootw0rm]

that's actually, um...common? i just had to repair an electric jackhammer last week. i worked in a machine shop for a large well drilling company not long ago, and not only did we create/repair tools for the company, but obviously had to keep our mills and lathes and cranes, etc. in good working condition.

[bmitc]

It's not common in the same sense. First of all, tools are very different from software products. And there is never the same level of analogy that one has to do in software.

Imagine buying a hammer, that hammer not working, the hammer's design being so complicated that it's impossible to understand or mend, and then having to design and build your own hammer, and then putting up with that situation over and over again and accepting that as the status quo. That would be the correct analogy.

[nik_0_0]

I'll agree wholeheartedly that the analogy needs some work. Tools are different - we have our literal physical tools that we don't generally dive into (keyboards, mice), we have tools that are maybe more battle tested and rarely examined (cat, grep, find).

We have do have tools like the hammer - there is one design, everyone more or less agrees on it. There is still high quality and low quality, but it has one job. We have tools like a bulldozer - complex, numerous parts, requires constant maintenance, closed source.

As the parent said - it is not uncommon to have to maintain old equipment, as well as design new tools as new requirements pop up.

Sure, our rust is a little bit different - time wears on software in a different way. Use wears on software differently. (Changing product requirements leading to a new tool is probably common.)

The maintenance may be trickier - but I'm sure changing components on a tool when a certain component is no longer available is not easy, thats where shim layer comes from!