> I don't disagree that software engineering is not as rigorous as it was.
Such an utter BS. Modern run-of-the-mill software would run stadiums around the software of 80-s or 90-s.
Version tracking, continuous integration, and even _bug_ tracking was not at all common in 90-s.
Testing? That's so far ahead of the state-of-the-art of even 2000-s that it's not even funny. Even the basic unit testing was a huge step ahead in 2000-s. And fuzz testing, ubiquitous sanitizers, time-travel debugging are all novel to the mainstream development.
And that's not all. We're now not just talking about formal methods, but applying them in practice (see: WUFFS). And we now have safety-oriented low-level languages like Rust (that's just basically 10 years old).
Such an utter BS. Modern run-of-the-mill software would run stadiums around the software of 80-s or 90-s.
Version tracking, continuous integration, and even _bug_ tracking was not at all common in 90-s.
Testing? That's so far ahead of the state-of-the-art of even 2000-s that it's not even funny. Even the basic unit testing was a huge step ahead in 2000-s. And fuzz testing, ubiquitous sanitizers, time-travel debugging are all novel to the mainstream development.
And that's not all. We're now not just talking about formal methods, but applying them in practice (see: WUFFS). And we now have safety-oriented low-level languages like Rust (that's just basically 10 years old).