> that's not how you come off in your comments and I'm not the only once noticing that. I agree there are some people willingly ignoring the positive things I

> that's not how you come off in your comments and I'm not the only once noticing that. I agree there are some people willingly ignoring the positive things I said in my original comment, and the other positive things I've said in other comments. My guess is that they would rather my view not be nuanced because otherwise there's not much left to attack. I'm happy to try to correct any misinterpretation, but I don't think it's all on me because it's not all comments that disagree with me. Quite a few comments show that people are getting my nuanced view. I would encourage you to re-read my very first comment with an open mind and decide if it's a balanced view based on decades of experience, or if I was actually really saying quality isn't important. If I was, it's very strange I would say the article in question is good. Which I did say. I disagree that the software profession needs quality fanatics. The software profession needs quality fanatics when it makes business sense. Nobody ever stayed employed by building a $2,000 lock on a $1,000 safe to protect a $1 bill. What you built might be of the highest quality, but when you build with blinders on and ignore every other business requirement you aren't a fanatic for quality. You're irresponsible. I take pride in my ability to do what's best for the company. It's often difficult and requires making tough decisions and tradeoffs and risk management and making sure everyone involved is aware of all of those things. That's what a professional looks like. Not a perfectionist obsessed with quality to the point they become difficult to work with. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. > The reality is that a lot of them have piss-poor quality though: they crash, lose data, get easily hacked, etc. Not the projects I'm on. I refuse to ship code that is that bad. I will get fired first.