This misses one of the key things I have seen that really drives reliable software. Actually rely on the software.
It sucks, because nobody likes the idea of the "squeaky wheel getting the grease." At the same time, nobody is surprised that the yard equipment that they haven't used in a year or so is going to need effort to get back to working. The longer it has been since it was relied on to work, the more likely that it won't work.
To that end, I'm not arguing that all things should be the critical path. But the more code you have that isn't regularly exercised, the more likely it will be broken if anything around it changes.
Yup. Dogfood everything you can. Too often I've seen things that could never have made it out the door if whoever designed them actually used them or worked with those who used them.
It sucks, because nobody likes the idea of the "squeaky wheel getting the grease." At the same time, nobody is surprised that the yard equipment that they haven't used in a year or so is going to need effort to get back to working. The longer it has been since it was relied on to work, the more likely that it won't work.
To that end, I'm not arguing that all things should be the critical path. But the more code you have that isn't regularly exercised, the more likely it will be broken if anything around it changes.