Lot of comments here are replying the nature of the solution matters. E.G: "Sure you are being paid for a solution. But you are also probably being paid for a

Lot of comments here are replying the nature of the solution matters. E.G: "Sure you are being paid for a solution. But you are also probably being paid for a quality solution" or "Code can be the solution. Good code even more so" or "when you pay to get your car fixed, there's an implicit expectation that it will be fixed well enough that it doesnt break the same way again" But the article does address this: > Now, of course, this is a tad more subtle. > Different types of problems have different types of costs, consequences, and constraints. And solutions to those problems as well also have them. > When code is the solution, it has a cost, at the very minimum in time and man-hours. And constraints, such as licenses, NDA, platforms, versions, formats, resource limits... And of course, consequences, such as technical debt, electricity consumption, user experience and hiring difficulties. > While the clients don't care about the code, they care very much about those. > And so, as IT professionals, we must communicate talking about that. Not about the code. Of course the quality of the solution matters, but it any good thing has a price. Therefore you have to present it with the price, and then your opinion on the whether it's worth it.