This is inline with what Stanford professor John Ousterhout says about the evolution (and necessary death) of software : "The most important component of evolu

This is inline with what Stanford professor John Ousterhout says about the evolution (and necessary death) of software : "The most important component of evolution is death Or, said another way, it's easier to create a new organism than to change an existing one. Most organisms are highly resistant to change, but when they die it becomes possible for new and improved organisms to take their place. This rule applies to social structures such as corporations as well as biological organisms: very few companies are capable of making significant changes in their culture or business model, so it is good for companies eventually to go out of business, thereby opening space for better companies in the future. Computer software is a counter-example to this rule, with ironic results. Software is incredibly malleable: it can be updated with new versions relatively easily to fix problems and add new features. It is easier to change existing software than to build new software, so software tends to live a long time. To a first approximation, software doesn't die (compare this to the hardware in a computer, which is completely repaced every few years). At the same time, it is difficult to make major structural improvements to software once it has been shipped, so mistakes in early versions of the program often live forever. As a result, software tends to live too long: just good enough to discourage replacement, but slowly rotting away with more and more problems that are hard to fix. I wonder if the overall quality of computer software would improve if there were a way of forcing all software to be replaced after some period of time." https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-profound-life-lessons-from-Stanford-Professor-John-Ousterhout/answer/Anant-Bhardwaj https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-most-profound-life-lesson...