Great points, and I'd like to call out one section in particular: > What is good code? Missed one that really needs to be articulated: Correctness. Poor corr

Great points, and I'd like to call out one section in particular: > What is good code? Missed one that really needs to be articulated: Correctness. Poor correctness is one of the most harmful and widespread problems in software today. Even one of the most wealthy and best-paying companies cannot manage to deliver an acceptable level of correctness for some of the most widely-deployed Internet-facing software: https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=chrome https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=chrome And that company is arguably better at software engineering than the majority of companies. The takehome isn't "even Google makes software littered with critical defects, so I guess that excuses everyone else, lol". But rather, that most of our engineering field hasn't been held responsible for correctness, and now we routinely knowingly deliver engineering work that we assume has critical defects. And we show no remorse: even when some software is routinely shipping multiple security vulnerability patches per week, we keep doing the same shoddy engineering, sustaining the gushing pipeline of vulnerabilities needing patching.