My two bosses keep asking me how the code I write for myself is so stable (it's Elm), and yet we're always fixing bullshit bugs in our company's codebases (they

My two bosses keep asking me how the code I write for myself is so stable (it's Elm), and yet we're always fixing bullshit bugs in our company's codebases (they're JS and TS -- sorry guys, TS isn't good enough). But when I try to sell them on the stuff I use personally, the response I get is "it will be too expensive if we have to hire someone for that," yet no thought to the cost-effectiveness of needing to calling a dev on a weekend with overtime pay to fix a null reference that snuck into the codebase during the week somewhere. Or months ago. I'd say another developer is more valuable than clinging to classes of bugs that don't need to exist any longer. We do what we can but can only do so much to make and keep our code stable, we're a small company with a small dev team and one of the two managers like to meddle in the code. We get by well enough, but despite all the evidence directly in front of them, I am simply not allowed to take the leap into something that would be better in the long run. It just doesn't matter to them. Another one I get is "that language is too weird," but I've taken to just directly telling them that isn't a criticism and that I need a better reason. Of course it just goes right back to the hiring excuse from above. We aren't hiring and have no plans to hire anytime soon. We're small enough to move quickly, there's no giant organization to migrate into new tooling, none of that, I'm just basically being told that I'm planning too far in advance.