I think you have a point in that we can't expect modern audiences to adopt human-centric software. I don't think that this is a software-specific problem thoug

I think you have a point in that we can't expect modern audiences to adopt human-centric software. I don't think that this is a software-specific problem though, in that the very architectural designs that Christopher Alexander would endorse don't have capacity for scale (or the scale we expect). I think your argument could even be taken a step further in that "human-centric" or "living" software may not even be possible, given that software, in contrast to built environments which go back 10000+ years, doesn't have a "timeless" aspect to it. Like, how many strip mines, factories, power plants, logistic networks, etc. are all necessary to sustain our computing lives, and would this fit into the the "timeless way" referred to? I imagine if software was to reach a "timeless" status, existing in some sort of equilibrium in human society for thousands of years, and assuming this equilibrium is at some level of scale smaller than what exists now, I imagine something like Emacs being what a certain class scholars would use, mainly for specialized calculations that other societies have valued (e.g. astronomical, calendrical, bureaucratic).