Rejuvenating Autoconf

The sunk cost fallacy is by definition subconscious and it's a natural tendency we all have. This is very far from attributing a very specific, made-up point to someone specific.

> The sunk cost fallacy is when you choose not to switch to a cheaper option, because of what you've spend on the more expensive option.

The sunk cost fallacy is subconsciously give value to something that has none anymore and let that influence you. Influence is not always enough to win an (often collective) decision.

Sunk costs are much complicated in software than in say finance because _knowledge_ of an existing system is valuable: it makes knowledgeable workers much more productive which is of course very valuable, especially from the perspective of the experts. But what about the value for the project as a whole? The value of newer build systems is of a completely different sort: they require less expert knowledge and many more people can and do help with their maintenance. Interestingly, this decreases the "market" value of the old experts.

> It seems quite clear here that for many people, the cost of switching is very high, because they will have to (in one form or another) - reimplement a lot of autoconf. This makes maintaining autoconf the cheapest option!

It's pretty obvious that the minute after flipping the switch away from autoconf, a project that just migrated has spent a lot and gained nothing yet. I don't think anyone questioned that. Every technological choice is a large investment and its value must be studied _over time_.