[l00sed]

Really nicely written and quite thought-provoking. I think about when I die, will anyone be able to use or maintain any of the software I've written? Updates and patches are something so entwined with software that I doubt much of my code would be worth using if it suddenly froze.

It puts a beautiful spotlight on OSS communities and what they do to keep software alive through refactoring, iteration, patching. Also, on well-written documentation— perhaps that's even more important than the code for longterm maintenence and value. A good thesis that encourages someone to write it again, and better?

[deadbabe]

If you are worried about software being usable long after you’ve died, you should be releasing compiled binaries.

[l00sed]

That's true. Even then, though, you're dealing with backwards-compatibility support as the system updates. A compiled binary might run well for the systems it was compiled for, but what about longer timelines (a decade)? Will the newest system be able to easily run that compiled binary? Not always... and there's always the possibility it might include vulnerabilities that weren't discovered until later.

I was reading about terminal text editors (em, en, vi, vim, neovim, etc.), and it's interesting how some of the software that "lasts" is more like Theseus' Ship. All the original components replaced over time, but the core concepts last.

[GaProgMan]

The problem of what happens when the author is unable to keep working on the source code has come up a LOT in the .NET space. One author (of both books and OSS) has even written up [0] the pro-active steps he's taken for when "The Emnuggerance" (as Pratchett called it) takes his abilities.

[0] https://www.thereformedprogrammer.net/how-to-update-a-nuget-...