The great part about this process is that, in my opinion, it highlights the importance of pragmatism. Google, as multi-billion dollar ad company, is understanda

The great part about this process is that, in my opinion, it highlights the importance of pragmatism. Google, as multi-billion dollar ad company, is understandably (and I would say, correctly) risk adverse when it comes to changes to its bread and butter. But if a new startup tries to replicate a process whose aim is to produce code that "[runs for] years without need for massive intervention" before they've established product/market fit, they will run out of cash. Google has very specific needs. Code quality requirements for banking software is different than a CRUD app. IMHO, the best path is to be honest with where you are as a company. Some times you need to just see what works, and multiple cheap iterations that you have no plan to support in the future can be critical to success. Other times you're making billions of dollars and the most important thing is to not screw up. With every variation in between. So at my company: our subscription and payment handling is designed to run for years. Not screwing up is the most important. Certain product features are pushed as quickly to market as we can, with an eye towards future stability. "Good enough" being good enough.