On the surface, this seems like a very pithy observation. Unfortunately, the link only has three short paragraphs that fail to develop the concept past what it says in kerbou's summary, and a fourth paragraph where the author implicates himself in the morass, leaving us with more questions and no answers. Most of the substance is in the 50+ comments, but it's a very mixed bag. To me, the correlation of the availability of money with software developer quality is logically flawed. The right way to look at this is "The fact that businesses can afford to lose a ton of money on software projects is ruining the quality of software".

I've been hired to help clean up a number of budget busting messes during my career, often stepping in when it was considered that "bad developers" were responsible for the mess. After hanging out for a while, I invariably start feeling like the developers probably did a decent job considering the complete lack of direction on the part of the "business experts" involved. In my experience, the really bad situations happen because stakeholders throw money at software development before they really have any idea what they want, and change there minds so often during the construction phase that they ran out of money before they can produce anything meaningful, let alone TEST and REVIEW the junk they've already made. Could a skilled, conscientious developer have prevented this type of situation? Not in my opinion--the skilled, conscientious developers turn down those jobs because they can see them for the trainwrecks they're destined to be. At that point, the company finds a nice inexperienced developer and the train keeps on rolling inexorably toward disaster.

A CodeGroupThink member making a proper analysis of a situation? That doesn't happen.

I'm surprised he didn't blame type casting as the cause of the problems.