This is complete software. Can you say that about yours?

This is complete software. Can you say that about yours?

by Anonymous · July 04, 2026

Software isn't like written words. It generally requires upkeep to remain useful and functional over the years (or decades).

I enjoy writing partially because of the sense of finality. You write something down and it will be there waiting for you in 20 years, exactly as you left it. Assuming you used simple words or explained the topics of the time period, it should be readable and understandable by future generations. Think how "electric truck" will likely be relatable 100 years from now, but "Ford Lightning" may not carry today's meaning.

Software does not generally work this way. It requires upkeep and becomes obsolete because the systems around it change, even if itself never changes.

This is actually why I left Android development, keeping up with the seemingly random SDK updates and constant name changes was so bad that software I wrote five days ago wouldn't build without hours of work on my own before giving up and having Qwen help me, which still took longer than it should've.

Lots of modern software is SaaS or mandatorily cloud-connected with forced updates which also presents the other side of this:

Many software developers start adding things no one asked for (AI or Subscriptions, anyone?) and end up alienating the core audience that got them where they are today. This doesn't mean change is bad, but it does mean that change for the sake of change or chasing trends without considering what users expect today is deeply disrespectful.

If you set expectations, such as "This is a file sharing thingy today, we may add cryptocurrency or AI features later on", this sets the precedent for users and gives them an opportunity to consider whether this is software they wish to rely on or build a business with long term. At this point, it's their own fault if they choose to go with the software and it ends up a disaster. The warning was given.

We're (as developers and users) heading away from ownership and sovereignty towards being someone's next rug pull the moment they sell out or go bankrupt. This should scare everyone, but it's just being accepted as the new normal. Yes open source can solve it to an extent, but open projects rug pull sometimes too.

What's the solution? I'm not sure. I have some ideas.

The software should have fits-in-head complexity. Stop with the 500 NPM packages and random dependencies for everything. Its terrible for your supply chain security, so stop it!<br>Set expectations for users. If you want to use your project as a staging environment for new technologies, tell your users and let them decide whether they'd like to participate.<br>Build on top of known, trustworthy tech stacks. Your foundation should be solid, not built on the whims of some company that decides your use case isn't worth maintaining compatibility.<br>Be slow to the cutting edge where it matters. AI will be there for you in five years, and you may end up saving yourself a ton of time and money by avoiding it while the kinks are worked out.<br>Investigate the values of those you trust with your works. Do they have your best interest? Do they have a history of scams and rug pulls? Do they sell out to VC to the detriment of the users?

As a footnote related to the above ideas;

The writing software you're reading on right now is called Nonograph. It's designed with the above concerns as primary design factors. I want it to look and act the same way in 20 years as it does today. As I said in this post, resisting financial desires is part of it. Having a stable foundation and being simple to understand and maintain are another part.

write your own<br>legal<br>api<br>nojs<br>source code