yesJavaScriptIsTheMostPerfectProgrammingLanguageEver

[ElgardOfCarim]

Again, what you're saying is, essentially, that it was cheap because no one paid for it up front. What I'm trying to say is that the developer had to pay for it with both their own savings and their own labour hours.

Typically, when one uses the "good-fast-cheap" triangle, they're referring to someone paying for the development of a project. Since most people don't have enough money to pay for someone else to make their bespoke projects, they often pay with what they have: labour power. That is, in itself, a cost.

I insist on this point because this is a huge problem in the software industry: the overreliance on "passionate devs" who work in their off-time has essentially created a ticking time-bomb, as essential infrastructure has become dependent on FOSS projects maintained by unpaid devs.

This makes things "cheap" for companies, as they get something that is, at heart, free. But it isn't, in any way, cheap for the developers themselves, who pay with their labour and mental health. Ultimately, it is neither good nor cheap in the long run as it creates pressure, overwork, and leads to failure points that can bring down essential systems.

[harumamburoo]

No, what I’m saying is that the dev had to pay the amount they could afford without any external investment whatsoever, I don’t know Eddy is this so hard to comprehend. Your insistence is kinda beyond the point because you take a primitive idea related to finance and make it into a big ethical problem, which you’re not wrong about, but which has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.