Testable software usually has a better quality because you can automate some parts of the quality assurance. Sacrificing quality assurance to favour other aspe

Testable software usually has a better quality because you can automate some parts of the quality assurance. Sacrificing quality assurance to favour other aspects is common, but the quality usually suffers. A company favouring time to market over testability is likely to release buggy software. They can get away with it. Adaptability is a common quality, but you can find counterexamples. WordPress and SAP are successful software that may not check all the quality boxes. Some architectures are for sure worse than others, and there isn’t one good architecture for all kinds of problems.