[JohnMakin]

No I didn't. Failing to adopt an IAC approach, which I have seen in my career many times, whether it's terraform or any of the other tools - comes down to organizational issues.

I'll pose a question to your snotty response - What specifically about terraform would lead to it failing to be implemented at a company? The answer to that will provide all you need.

[quesera]

I'm not being snotty. Terraform is not the best choice for every organization.

Rather, Terraform does not add value within every organizational structure. Not adding value is failing. Having a negative ROI is failing.

None of these infrastructure tools are perfect, and the ways in which they are imperfect mean that some are better or worse matches for an organization's needs.

Therefore your initial statement is oversimplified, presumptuous, and ultimately nonsensical. A logical reframing is "if your organization does not match Terraform's strengths, then your org is the problem", and that is clearly not true.

[JohnMakin]

You're shifting goalposts now and still failed to answer my question. And since you seem to have cracked the long-known problem of measuring infrastructure/devops/etc. team performance (since apparently you have a way to measure the ROI on that) I'm assuming you're far above my expertise here and have it all figured out, and I'm in over my head and have clearly struck a nerve. Glad you figured out a problem that so many haven't! have a good day.

[quesera]

The answer is that they all suck. I've used them, and I've written them. They sucked 20 years ago, and they suck today.

But they suck differently, for different reasons, and they suck in different magnitudes in the hands of different teams, with different needs.

I have never met an org that was happy with their infrastructure tooling! But I have met some that were happier with some tools than with others.

It's horses for courses. Terraform is a contender for some use cases. Nothing more, nothing less.