1. The economic incentives are aligned to ensure most software isn't very good because it doesn't "need" to be. 2. The tools that help make software really, re

1. The economic incentives are aligned to ensure most software isn't very good because it doesn't "need" to be. 2. The tools that help make software really, really good are really, really baroque and remain that way because the people who invent them are subtly incentivized to be the high-priest of an esoteric technology church rather than making them for the masses. Which ensures that making really, really good software doesn't get cheaper with time and also ensures that you'll only reach for these tools if _you absolutely have to_ because of #1. 3. Software Programmers/Engineers see their jobs, and appear to derive most of their joy, from doing the actual coding. Not in using rigorous design tools ahead of time which are unmoored from their implementation, nor in doing the testing & verification of the implementation after the fact. 3a. Software Designers/Architects have made a bad name for themselves by spending more time pontificating at whiteboards than writing down verifiable specs & models. 3b. Software Testers/QA folks are treated as lower-class than Programmers/Engineers, and don't get paid nearly well enough, so they're setup to follow rote scripts and procedures rather than empowered to deploy sophisticated testing methods like property-based testing or mutation testing. 4. All those factors appear to have created a feedback loop which has become self-reinforcing.