> adding features can only make it worse, not better.
There are exceptions, but software is usually part of a system, a social system. Successful software changes its environment, and in turn, the environment demands change from the software, which diligent maintainers attend to.
It follows that, in the general case, "no change in a long time" is a pretty good indicator that the software is either unsuccessful or abandoned. As I said, there are exceptions (gists might be one of them).
> It follows that, in the general case, "no change in a long time" is a pretty good indicator that the software is either unsuccessful or abandoned.
Or just exceptionally well adapted to a stable social environment. Which might even be so stable precisely because the software is working so well that no changes to either software or social system -- business processes -- are required.
Agreed, as you say it _exceptionally_ well adapted. Where the loop has basically reached a fixed point. As software is a relatively new phenomenon, maybe we'll reach a fixed point for most software in a few hundred years.
There are exceptions, but software is usually part of a system, a social system. Successful software changes its environment, and in turn, the environment demands change from the software, which diligent maintainers attend to.
It follows that, in the general case, "no change in a long time" is a pretty good indicator that the software is either unsuccessful or abandoned. As I said, there are exceptions (gists might be one of them).