I define a difference between experts who make their money informing others how to write high quality software and experts who implement the (hopefully) high qu

I define a difference between experts who make their money informing others how to write high quality software and experts who implement the (hopefully) high quality software. As the latter, there are most definitely cases where the high-quality argument is not valid. It's not a matter a belief. It's more about constraint. If you have the time and expertese, quality is great, and that's when I like software development the most. But I've also decided to eschew quantity to meet external demands. Then we're talking mitigation: "We'll farm out these 3 services to juniors/external devs to meet the client's/management's deadline with the expectation they'll be chucked and rewritten later." We're making the decision to take on technical debt and hopefully keep it isolated enough that it's relatively easy to redo. Martin Fowler and his ilk are frequently lacking a level of pragmatism that must be adopted to meet business needs.