I'm trying to interpret the highlighted part below. It seems to me that lack of punctuation (serial comma) makes this a little difficult to understand.
One of the comforting things about old memories is their tendency to take on a rosy glow. The programming environment provided by the early versions of Unix seems, when described here, to be extremely harsh and primitive. I am sure that if forced back to the PDP-7 I would find it intolerably limiting and lacking in conveniences. Nevertheless, it did not seem so at the time; the memory fixes on what was good and what lasted, and on the joy of helping to create the improvements that made life better. In ten years, I hope we can look back with the same mixed impression of progress combined with continuity. (from https://www.cs.jhu.edu/~huang/cs718/spring18/readings/unix-evolution.pdf)
Could someone determine which of the following is closer to the originally intended meaning, considering the standard written English usage?
- what was good, and what lasted (separate)
- what was good and lasted (grouped)