[ChrisMarshallNY]

> Ain't no one willing to pay for all of that.

That made me think that he didn't think it was possible.

I guess I'm a cynic, but I think that many companies, these days, are willing to pay -and pay a great deal-, for exactly that.

[mschuster91]

> I guess I'm a cynic, but I think that many companies, these days, are willing to pay -and pay a great deal-, for exactly that.

lol, where? Outside of the industries I mentioned (and banking/insurance, which falls under the "legal consequences" catch-all)... good luck.

Government procurement only cares about price, and you see that confirmed whenever some government "digitalization" project balloons or the balloon inevitably explodes. Large companies live and breathe on Excel and shadow IT. Small companies want something that reasonably works and can be somewhat afforded.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

I dunno. I regularly use mobile and host software that crashes all the time, goes into memory panics, has terrible UI, is inscrutable, not accessible, and just damn ugly.

Almost every corporate dashboard I use -Web or app- is junk. I was watching old folks wrestling with a terribly-designed UI at a medical lab, recently. If the designers had just given a tiny, tiny little shit, those folks would have had it a lot easier, instead of having to be walked through it, by the receptionist.

I have to restart most of my streaming apps, several times a week.

The folks that wrote those, get paid plenty.

[fc417fc802]

I think perhaps the missing piece here is the suggestion that the status quo is cheaper in the short term but (IIUC you're suggesting) more expensive in the long term. Of course the problem is convincing current management first of this fact followed by why that should matter to them.

But amusingly this all seems to be rapidly changing with the advent of AI agents since they don't work all that well without a clear spec and thorough documentation (and likely comprehensive tests as well).