> Everything is supposed to decay. But software is effectively immortal, and that's the root of this problem. We need to introduce decay into software systems, or we end up with zombies that are too useful to let die.
> We should allow software to die. It's okay. Whenever a generation feels like they can't lose the artifacts of the previous generation, civilization is in decline. Which is okay too, except when technology protects those artifacts too well, which I believe usually hastens the end.
I don't think this will be a problem, over the long term.
the average life-span of companies listed in S&P 500 was 61 years in 1958. The current average is under 18 years.
As long as that code is helping to keep it's hosts alive, it will keep being run. When the remaining hosts die, the code will die too.
60 years from now, someone will be having this discussion about having to keep a virtualized instance of AWS running, complete with all the CPU, GPU, and networking bugs, just to keep some crucial bitcoin clearinghouse that no-one understands anymore running.
Heck, maybe it will be even weirder, like, what if GMail ends up being that sort of zombie infrastructure, and it stops working if there is no more spam? We'll have to set up a dedicated AI to create and send spam just to keep the last demi-sentient instance of Gmail running without having an existential meltdown.
I'm reasonably sure that by that point, COBOL itself won't be a problem anymore, there simply won't be any companies that still depend on it left.
> We should allow software to die. It's okay. Whenever a generation feels like they can't lose the artifacts of the previous generation, civilization is in decline. Which is okay too, except when technology protects those artifacts too well, which I believe usually hastens the end.
I don't think this will be a problem, over the long term.
the average life-span of companies listed in S&P 500 was 61 years in 1958. The current average is under 18 years.
As long as that code is helping to keep it's hosts alive, it will keep being run. When the remaining hosts die, the code will die too.
60 years from now, someone will be having this discussion about having to keep a virtualized instance of AWS running, complete with all the CPU, GPU, and networking bugs, just to keep some crucial bitcoin clearinghouse that no-one understands anymore running.
Heck, maybe it will be even weirder, like, what if GMail ends up being that sort of zombie infrastructure, and it stops working if there is no more spam? We'll have to set up a dedicated AI to create and send spam just to keep the last demi-sentient instance of Gmail running without having an existential meltdown.
I'm reasonably sure that by that point, COBOL itself won't be a problem anymore, there simply won't be any companies that still depend on it left.