The maintenance myth

Every site needs maintenance. That's the conventional wisdom. But it's wrong. Sites don't break because they're old—they break because they're built wrong.

A well-built site requires minimal maintenance. It uses stable dependencies, follows best practices, and is architected for longevity. A poorly built site requires constant fixes, security patches, and emergency updates.

Building for stability

The foundation matters. Using bleeding-edge frameworks that change every month creates maintenance debt. Using stable, well-maintained libraries reduces it. The goal isn't to use the newest tools—it's to use the right tools.

Architecture matters. A site built with clear separation of concerns, modular components, and clean code is easier to maintain. A site built with spaghetti code, tight coupling, and technical debt requires constant attention.

The real cost

Maintenance isn't free. Every hour spent fixing bugs is an hour not spent building features. Every emergency patch is time taken from strategic work. The cost of poor architecture compounds over time.

Investing in good architecture upfront pays dividends. Sites that are built right require minimal maintenance, leaving time and budget for improvements, not fixes.