If we accept this as true and grant that there was a method that produced code that in many ways was superior. It would take time to write and require less effort to maintain and on top of that it would have less bugs and be more reliable, wouldn't that give whatever shops adopted these practices have just an insane competitive advantage?
This seems extremely paradoxical, especially given, in your own words "[t]oday, modern software is failing left and right."
Why isn't cheaper, faster-to-develop software that requires less maintenance and isn't failing left and right able to completely take over?
The parent specifically states that correct unsafe code is more expensive to produce though?
I agree with the parent anyway. Most programming is relatively low stakes (at worst the user restarts the app or make a new shopping cart or sends the message again etc.) which then means that most programmers are trained to write low-stakes code. IMO this is why "turning it off then on again" and "delete the configuration files" are such common advice.
> When unsafe code is written, it can be shown that it "works", but this takes effort and engineering time. When things are designed such that they cannot fail, it doesn't take effort and engineering time to make sure they "work". This is why designing from the beginning with correctness in mind is superior than writing crap code and then debugging later.
This seems extremely paradoxical, especially given, in your own words "[t]oday, modern software is failing left and right."
Why isn't cheaper, faster-to-develop software that requires less maintenance and isn't failing left and right able to completely take over?