[rezonant]

> Writing replaceable code instead of maintainable code seems to be already working for a lot of projects.

I contend that these two concepts aren't different. If you have the ability to easily replace a small part of the code and have everything still work, then that's very maintainable. Unless you are talking about throwing out the whole codebase and replacing it, which for sufficiently complex codebases will inevitably lead to the second system effect. If replacing the whole thing is easy, it was probably not that valuable or complex to begin with, but that's not the kind of code where maintainability is paramount.

> It already works for infrastructure as nowadays servers are not fixed and treated like important things but you spin up fresh one.

For that metaphor to work, the programmer would have to be patching the binary output instead of fixing the source code and recompiling.

[ozim]

> If replacing the whole thing is easy, it was probably not that valuable or complex to begin with, but that's not the kind of code where maintainability is paramount.

Yes I think even as far as 70%-80% of code - IMHO - is not complex/valuable.

Most of code is replaceable CRUD not controls systems for flying and landing Falcon 9. So it is people problem not a technical problem, people pretend that they need "button more to the left and different shade" just to feel more important. Where we end up with loads of systems that do slightly different thing.

[rezonant]

This is a very extreme take to something far more nuanced... It's possible for code to be complex and valuable without meeting the extremes of "is a literal rocket control system" and "is some buttons on a form".

When I say valuable, I mean provides value to a business. When I say complex, I mean not buttons on a form.