| ▲ | stephc_int13 8 hours ago | |
The economic angle is not as clear cut as the authors seem to think. There is an abundance of mediocre and even awful code in products that are not failing because of it. The worst thing about poorly designed software architecture is that it tends to freeze and accumulate more and more technical debt. This is not always a competitive issue, and with enough money you can maintain pretty much any codebases. | ||
| ▲ | wreath 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |
Even with enough money, you may not be able to attract/keep talented engineers who are willing to put up with such a work environment (the codebase itself, and probably the culture that led to its state) and who want to ship well built/designed software but are slowed down by the mess. | ||
| ▲ | woeirua 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
The most successful software in a field is typically NOT the best software. The authors of the article live in a world that does not exist. Clean code lost, many years ago. | ||