3 ms·

What is your point? He can maintain it without pay. Good for him, good for us, good for all. This case is different.

• carapace 6y ago
  Well I guess I have a few points: 1) We all depend on Chet Ramsey and don't spare a moment to think about it. How many people have emailed him a thank you note, let alone sent him money? 2) Is that good or bad? or both? 3) Mature software has low low maintenance costs (that's almost the definition of "mature software", eh?) 4) The real problem might be that we keep writing new code. If you restrict yourself to mature code your costs go way down, since you're not paying to write new code nor to maintain it. (It might read like I'm saying Marak should be like Ramsey, that's NOT my point.)
  • gtsop 6y ago
    1) Very few indeed. 2) I will say mostly bad, but this is also a factor of his personal ability to cope financially and support bash at the same time. But again, mostly bad. 3) ahmmm not always. You can make the argument the linux kernel is very mature but the maintenance cost isn't low at all since it needs to keeo changing and is also getting larger and larger. 4) Yes agreed, but sometimes this isn't an option because many companies want to build propriatery solutions (for reasons that may be valid or not). If I am a developer at that project... well I will reuse as more mature code as possible, but then I'll need to write new code as well