4 ms·
I'm not sure I understand your point - the best built system in the world still needs maintenance. Parts go rusty. Requirements change. Those are not results of
by blowski 10y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point - the best built system in the world still needs maintenance. Parts go rusty. Requirements change. Those are not results of bad design, but the inevitable consequences of the real world.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cgio 10y agoThe better the design the less the maintenance. There might not be a perfect design in the real world, and we would agree on that. But at least the ideal perfect design would imply zero maintenance.
- blowski 10y agoWhat happens if requirements change? What happens if a related technology is invented which would make your current design more efficient? Do you class changes like that under maintenance? And how do you check your theoretically 'no-maintenance-required' design genuinely doesn't need any maintenance? And how do you get round the catch 22 that you can't build a perfect system without perfect knowledge about what to build, but you can't have perfect knowledge without feedback from an existing system? Instead of building a product that theoretically never needs maintenance, I'd rather build a product for which maintenance is easy.
- tormeh 10y agoWell, maintenance is what you do to avoid (negative) change. Changing requirements or improvements are not maintenance.