What I described is taking stakeholder requirements into consideration like budget, deadlines, and the expected useful life of the software. That's not best practice? If it's not could you describe what I should be doing differently? I thought it was a step up when I finally realized software quality is not the only requirement competing for attention, but since I've spent my entire career paying close attention to what's best practice I'm also willing to learn from you and improve.

Every piece of software should be high quality even if it's a throw-away website used for 2 weeks? You'd expect the programmer to give a mathematical proof for the website code?

I also described that stuff does eventually break like the laptop I'm writing this on and it's not end of the world. We expect stuff to break.

Can you explain why my wife and almost every accountant in the world amortize intangible assets like in-house developed software and give it a useful life span?

> Can you explain why my wife and almost every accountant in the world amortize intangible assets like in-house developed software and give it a useful life span?

That's learned behaviour post factum. Had we (the software industry at large) done better then they wouldn't have the countless examples to learn from and turn them into a habit. Don't conflate things.

> I also described that stuff does eventually break like the laptop I'm writing this on and it's not end of the world. We expect stuff to break.

You are arguing extremes. The fact that a physical object will eventually suffer wear and tear no matter what has zero correlation to the fact that most software can be much more robust and long-lived but extreme time and money constraints prevent it from being so.

Our points of view can meet but not until you admit that a learned behaviour is something that can be changed if enough people with money stop turning cutting corners into an olympic sport.

> Had we (the software industry at large) done better then they wouldn't have the countless examples to learn from and turn them into a habit.

Nonsense. Stuff breaks. Everything. Even stuff made to a very high standard.

> most software can be much more robust and long-lived

It can't. Not because it can't be much more robust. But because most software is simply obsolete after a few years or maybe ten years if you're lucky. Software doesn't live in a static world where nothing changes. Laws changes, accounting practices are modernized, entire industries come and go, and everything is in a constant state of change. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to see it. I have. I've seen perfectly built in-house custom inventory software replaced a few years later by something like SAP because upper management decides the pros of having an integrated logistics system far outweighs the features of one in-house app. Sorry, but I've been in the business world far too long to fall for the idea that software is ever long-lived. There are some rare cases that it can be. The 40 year old COBOL programs some banks run to process massive amounts of transactions over night. And guess what? As long lived as they are, they are being re-written little by little because it's damn hard to find anyone under 65 who is actually interested in maintaining them. Software does not live in a vacuum.

Oh well, guess I better go into research and find academic investments because all this "make this web app yesterday" crap is getting very old and annoying...

I don't but I'd still like to learn a thing or two from their creators, they obviously knew how to get stuff done that lasts. ;)

They didn't know that. Things that last also retain their usefulness. My entire point really. As an aside, let's hope you didn't use up extra resources that are not renewable in making something so durable but eventually useless. Would I favor regulations that prevent the opposite? Stuff that breaks before the end of its useful life just to create another purchase? I would consider it. Both ends of the spectrum create problems.

You give too much credit to the businessmen. They don't care about environment, they care about more sales and there do not exist any lengths they would not go to in order to achieve those.

I'd say producing one durable piece of tech vs. 5-10 non-durable pieces of tech is still more sustainable for the environment, would you not agree?

I love strong regulations that try to reduce or eliminate negative externalities (like pollution and toxic waste), especially when the cost of the those externalities are collected at the point of purchase. They aren't very popular though. When we try things like a sugar tax to reduce the $$$ billions a year that diabetes costs us, people starting screaming about nanny state and their freedom.

I'm not sure how we would require products be durable though? Who would be Czar of how durable things must be? Seems like that person would have a huge amount of power over which industries are profitable and by how much. I'm open to ideas though.

As an Eastern European I would definitely entertain the idea that totalitarianism is not entirely wrong. IMO the world needs politicians with stronger will who are less obsessed by next elections and are religiously persecuting criminals and opportunists... however the politicians are parts of these criminals so yeah, welcome to 21st century.

In any case, regulations have proven time and again to mean absolutely nothing unless enforced very strictly and with a very heavy hand (flat percents of the offender's gross income, and I mean from 20% and up, not some petty 1-2%). But that won't happen -- lobbies, rings of companies, "anonymous" donations, things like that... the status quo is too deeply entrenched. But we can dream, right?