This perspective is pretty pervasive from what I have seen. However, I think the analogy should be taken to its logical conclusion. There are many, many example

This perspective is pretty pervasive from what I have seen. However, I think the analogy should be taken to its logical conclusion. There are many, many examples of long lived structures built by carpenters and other craftspeople (in England there are residential dwellings dating back 1,000 years). The materials and maintenance have proved themselves and show that it does not take the large legal framework of engineering to design a structure fit for purpose. However, craftspeople and apprentice style training are not acceptable for the design and certification needed for modern skyscrapers, large format factories, bridges, or transportation infrastructure. I am more than willing to use, support, and even participate in software that is not critical and think a more-bright line separation should exist to delimit the arena for which craft scale software is appropriate. The other side of that is I am willing to acknowledge the existence of arenas not suited to less than formal and legal requirements for the design and ‘construction’ of software artifacts. Controversially, I think societally we use software in too integrated and too many areas that are better left sequestered and siloed. There really is no reason that a general computing device should be used for both untrusted internet connectivity and storing and accessing banking or medical information. The ubiquity of protected purpose built hardware should have been a goal, with a more general open computing hardware environment used by informed choice.