Let's be honest, nobody is saying to rebuild the world from scratch.

The stance for in-house built tools and software is a much more balanced act than that. One that prioritises self-reliance, and foments institutional knowledge while assessing the risks of making that one more thing in-house. It promotes a culture where employees stay, because they know they might be able to create great impact. It also has the potential to cut down the fat of a lot of money being spent on third parties.

Let's be real, most companies have built Empire State Buildings out of cards. Their devs spend most of their time fixing obtuse problems they don't understand, and I'm not talking about programming, but in their build processes and dependency hell.

It's no wonder that the giants of today, who have survived multiple crisis, are the ones who took the risk of listening to those "novice" enthusiastic engineers.

Don't kill the enthusiasm, tame it.

Sure. We should harness enthusiasm and channel it in the right direction.

I'm not sure I agree the giants of today are built on the work of enthusiastic novices. Amazon and Microsoft have always had a ton of senior talent. Meta started with novices but then a lot got reworked by more experienced people.

You might get by with sheer enthusiasm and no experience but often that leads you to failure.