This is basically unethical. Imagine anything important in the world that worked this way. "Do nuclear engineering the easy way while it works, and when it stops working, fix the problem."

Software engineers always make the excuse that what they're making now is unimportant, so who cares? But then everything gets built on top of that unimportant thing, and one day the world crashes down. Worse, "fixing the problem" becomes near impossible, because now everything depends on it.

But really the reason not to do it, is there's no need to. There are plenty of other solutions than using Git that work as well or better without all the pitfalls. The lazy engineer picks bad solutions not because it's necessarily easier than the alternatives, but because it's the path of least resistance for themselves.

Not only is this not better, it's often actively worse. But this is excused by the same culture that gave us "move fast and break things". All you have to do is use any modern software to see how that worked out. Slow bug-riddled garbage that we're all now addicted to.

Most of the world does work this way. Problems are solved within certain conditions and for use over a certain time frame. Once those change, the problem gets revisited.

Most software gets to take it to more of an extreme then many engineering fields since there isn't physical danger. Its telling that the counter examples always use the potentially dangerous problems like medicine or nuclear engineering. The software in those fields are more stringent.

On the other hand, GitHub wants to be the place you choose to build your registry for a new project, and they are clearly on board with the idea given that they help massive projects like Nix packages instead of kicking them off.

As opposed to something like using a flock of free blogger.com blogs to host media for an offsite project.

Hold up... "lazy engineers" are the problem here? What about a society that insists on shoving the work product of unfunded, volunteer engineers into critical infrastructure because they don't want to pay what it costs to do things the right way? Imagine building a nuclear power plant with an army of volunteer nuclear engineers.

It cannot be the case that software engineers are labelled lazy for not building the at-scale solution to start with, but at the same time everyone wants to use their work, and there are next to no resources for said engineer to actually build the at scale solution.

> the path of least resistance for themselves.

Yeah because they're investing their own personal time and money, so of course they're going to take the path that is of least resistance for them. If society feels that's "unethical", maybe pony up the cash because you all still want to rely on their work product they are giving out for free.

Fixing problems as they appear is unethical? Ok then.

You realize, there are people who think differently? Some people would argue that if you keep working on problems you don't have but might have, you end up never finishing anything.

It's a matter of striking a balance, and I think you're way on one end of the spectrum. The vast majority of people using Julia aren't building nuclear plants.