@thomasfuchs that’s why I love Common Lisp libraries. Most of them are just “done” and haven’t been updated in 15 years or so.

@thomasfuchs If the quality of software is literally measured by how infrequently it gets updated then Internet Explorer is high quality. Don't think so.

Software update frequency has little to do with quality. Software updates often do tend to make software better, at least in open source where entshittification does not play a role. Frequent updates also mean software is actively developed, which is also a good thing.

@thomasfuchs thats exactly why i'm a big fan of #clojure and #lisp updates yes if necessary otherwise it just works.

@thomasfuchs Software as fashion, essentially. Change as a social status token.

@thomasfuchs A lot of developers will disagree with both statements. Without knowing any details, having good test coverage, single-responsibility functions and clean static and dynamic analysis results looks good. Updating the code base itself is not necessarily desirable, but keeping current on dependencies certainly is.

@thomasfuchs

That just PMs justifying their existence.

@thomasfuchs agreed — there have been libraries I’ve stopped using because they were releasing multiple new versions a week, and backwards-incompatible major versions several times a year. Life’s too short to spend that much time thinking about pagination.

It’s not even that the updates were mandatory, but it just gives a strong sense that the developer isn’t stopping to think about what they’re doing.

@thomasfuchs you need to reach that sweetspot where it gets touched juuuuust enough to reassure the user it's not completely abandoned. Like it gets one, maybe two patches per year