[svnt]

I understand the sentiment but there are so many situations where this is not true.

All it takes is a good enough sales and marketing team, or the right executive relationships, especially if the team being “supported” is small.

You can say the company or division is presently functioning, but the time constant on the product is different, and the coupling is too loose to say anything else with accuracy.

[alex_sf]

> All it takes is a good enough sales and marketing team, or the right executive relationships, especially if the team being “supported” is small.

That's the point though. Getting caught up in engineering purity or even whether it's objectively _good_ is a waste. The product exists to drive business (financial) metrics. If it's doing that, it's working.

[what_is_orcas]

The one thing that I'd challenge about this line of thought is that the product isn't necessarily "done", there are expectations to add features & fix bugs.

If the product is poorly crafted, and especially if it's also poorly tested, adding features can introduce bugs, and fixing bugs in one place can cause issues elsewhere. Development then slows to handle these occurrences, which can then impact product viability.

[alex_sf]

I'm aware of technical debt and it's consequences. The point is that the vast majority of developers treat their job as creating good software, when it's absolutely not.

[randomswede]

I'd say it's creating software that is "good enough" (good enough to do what it needs to, right now, sufficiently frequently that paying customers return).