If you extrapolate that to the logical conclusion, in the future will we buy software at all? Maybe your computer will just build whatever you need, whenever you need it.
replyMuch less if you consider buy vs build+maintain.
replyI think your underlying point is correct, but "buy" is also "buy+maintain." There's a real cost to keeping up with dependency upgrades, especially for big frameworks that like to change their fundamental public-facing API every few years.
replyThat's very true. People put up with the many limitations of off the shelf software because it's cheaper, not because it's better. Developing bespoke software solutions is now a lot cheaper than it used to be. So, there are a lot of cases where that now becomes the better option.
replyDoing in days what used to take months, is a bit of a game changer. Like with past cost reductions, people will underestimate the work and get it wrong. It helps if you know what you are doing rather than just vibe coding things.
But for rewrites, the sunk cost fallacy becomes a lot cheaper. So, that changes how you deal with stuff that clearly isn't living up to expectations. Unceremoniously replacing what wasn't that expensive to begin with might be the cheaper option relative to fixing it.
An efficient business focuses on their core competencies. Increasing the surface area of things to worry about is not what most businesses want to do.
replyThere is no such thing as maintenance-free software, even as the end user.
They also do it because there's someone to blame, and - more importantly - because they know the people who are selling it from their golf dates.
reply