| ▲ | bluefirebrand an hour ago |
| It's perhaps how some humans code but frankly if you have those people employed to build software for you, you have big problems |
|
| ▲ | pishpash an hour ago | parent [-] |
| That's some idealistic nostalgia. Software is generally poorly built today, and it's evidently not big enough a problem to fix. |
| |
| ▲ | munk-a an hour ago | parent [-] | | Large companies that can keep themselves alive with regulatory capture - absolutely. For smaller companies that need to compete the software quality and ongoing cost of maintaining that software is a real consideration. That isn't to say software is perfectly built, but it's usually pragmatically built to balance costs of development and correctness - well chosen abstractions let us push up both qualities at once. | | |
| ▲ | tibco 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think every type of company has ways to workaround software quality. B2B can tend to define the bug as the feature or too low priority.. B2C can often decide backwards compatibility simply doesn't matter and just replace things with other things with only some actual feature overlap, etc. |
|
|
