[JaumeGreen]

> Might the overall greater pressure for performance have kept us writing lower-level code with more bugs while shipping less features?

Are you living in the same world as the rest of us? Nowadays programs are shipped with plenty of bugs, mostly because patching them afterwards is "cheap". In the old days that wasn't as cheap.

So having lower powered computers would have made us write programs with less features, but also less bugs. Formal coding would be up, and instead of moving fast and break things most serious business would be writing coq or idris tests for their programs.

Bootcamps also wouldn't be a thing, unless they were at least a couple of years long. We'd need people knowing about complexity, big O, defensive programming, and plenty of other things.

And plenty of things we take for granted would be far away. Starting with LLMs and maybe even most forms of autocomplete and automatic tooling.

[iKlsR]

1. Get it working

2. Get it right

3. Make it fast ... pretty

Weird observation and from personal exp a good percentage of development stops at 1 with periodic blips to 3 when issues popup (of course with an eventual rewrite coming when new people come onboard) as a consequence of not focusing on 2 due to how we build today.