> That's part of the problem from what I've noticed. Engineers performance is not measured against the application of computer science as much as how much they

> That's part of the problem from what I've noticed. Engineers performance is not measured against the application of computer science as much as how much they add value to the business in the short term... since in the long term there is strong indication that good engineering always adds value (i.e. by reducing bugs, making software more performant, more reliable, etc). My suspicion is, this is because from a business perspective, improving the quality of software is only one way to secure revenue, out of several, with others potentially being cheaper. A business person might ask an engineer "so we have this technical debt that you request time to fix. What happens if we don't fix it?" The engineer might answer: "well, the software will perform worse" Business person: "...and?" Engineer: "This will make the experience worse for the end users." Business person: "...and?" Engineer: "They might leave?" Business person: "They can't leave, the software was purchased by their managers, not them. They have no agency about this." Engineer: "Ok, but they might complain to management and the company might not renew the contract...?" Business person: "Lol, the company just completed a 6 month, $500.000 data migration and rollout to integrate our software with their existing systems. Like hell they'd throw this away because a few case workers are unhappy." Engineer: "...oookay... but they might complain on social media and give our software a bad reputation?" Business person: "Yeah, I'll let Marketing handle that. Request denied!"