Re-reading the comment as a whole might help to correct this "strawman" interpretation, but anyways, here is some clarification: In today's world of software d

Re-reading the comment as a whole might help to correct this "strawman" interpretation, but anyways, here is some clarification: In today's world of software development, many take it as given that every software library should receive periodic updates, and that a library which has not been recently updated is in some sense "dead" and should not be used. This is logical in cases where the domain is itself constantly changing. For example, software packages which calculate the results of income tax returns must be updated yearly, because the tax laws change. Similarly, packages which perform time zone calculations must be periodically updated, because the time zone rules change. However, a vast number of software libraries operate in domains which are not inherently subject to change. As an arbitrary example, imagine a hypothetical library which performs symbolic differentiation and integration. Since the rules for how to integrate a function do not change, once thoroughly tested and debugged, there is no reason why such a library could not be used unaltered for decades. Yes, it might not benefit from the development of more efficient algorithms; but if the library was already more than fast enough for a certain application, that might not matter. While software is different from other things created by humans, the existence of creative works such as books or musical compositions, which often survive for decades or centuries despite not receiving regular updates, provides an illustration of what can and should be possible for software as well. Note, this is an illustration and not an argument.