Hacker News Reader

My understanding is that modern concrete is stronger (rebar), ancient concrete was more durable (Pantheon, 126 AD).

It is the rebar that makes it stronger but unfortunately it is also what gives modern concrete such a tiny lifespan. If you want something to last millennia it is better to build it the Roman way, without rebar.

I respectfully disagree - the design goals are vastly different between ancient Rome and today. There is no reason one couldn't build something that would last milennia, it is simply not economically feasible (and you would have a hard time securing investors).

> it is simply not economically feasible (and you would have a hard time securing investors).

So are Romans really behind us, or are we behind them? We seem bound by the forces of compound interest to never make something durable. But somehow they were capable of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com