> They say the way to get ahead at Google is to build a new successful product. Is that the same thing we're doing? It's easier to get ahead by building a new Z framework than to become a core committer on X framework from 10 years ago?
A Kurt Vonnegut quote comes to mind:
"Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance."
I think the reality is that some people are actually just fine doing the maintenance - but they're unlikely to boost their career/paycheck by doing so comparable to what they'd have gotten from making a new thing instead. And that's an issue.
I'd love to go back to old code with the benefit of deeper domain knowledge and greater understanding of my tools and be able to make products even better. However, it's hard to square that against making +20% earnings by helping build a new chat app.
> some people are actually just fine doing the maintenance - but they're unlikely to boost their career/paycheck by doing so comparable to what they'd have gotten from making a new thing instead
Is that really the case? Forums like this look down on maintenance a lot. But I find that real world companies much less so.
Aside from cleaning and lubrication, a lot of "doing maintenance" is still throwing away old material and bringing in new. Just being selective about exactly which part is at the end of its duty cycle.
People talk about it like there's something wrong when, at any given time, a few microservices are being rewritten. But I would expect that for a sufficiently large machine, on any given day a few parts are being replaced.
A Kurt Vonnegut quote comes to mind:
"Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance."