[xavortm]

there's a different level of 'good-enough' in each industry and that's normal. When your highest damage of a bad site is reduced revenue (or even just missed free user), you have lower motivation to do it right compared to a living human coming back in one piece.

[TonyAlicea10]

Yes, of course, but a culture of “good enough” can go too far. One may work in a lower-risk context, but we can still learn a lot from robust architectural thinking. Edge cases, security, and more.

Low quality for a shopping cart feels fine until someone steals all the credit card numbers.

[jimbob21]

Likewise, perfectionism when it is unneeded can slow teams down to a halt for no reason. The balance in most cases is in the middle, and should shift towards 100% correctness as consequences get more dire.

This is not to say your code should be a buggy mess, but 98% bug free when you're a SaaS product and pushing features is certainly better than 100% bug free and losing ground to competitors.

[TonyAlicea10]

True, though I'd say more bug impact than bug free-ness. If the 2% of bugs is in the most critical area of your app and causes users to abandon your product then you're losing ground.

That's one thing I think is good to learn from mission critical architecture: an awareness of the impact and risk tolerance of code and bugs, which means an awareness of how the software will be used and in what context by users.