> That may be. What's not specified there is the immense, immense cost of driving a dev org on those terms
I'm happy that we agree on the solution, but disagree only if it is cost worthy. About the cost, I took that into consideration when I wrote the conclusion:
> FAANG-style companies are unlikely to adopt formal methods or relational rigor wholesale. But for their most critical systems, they should. It’s the only way to make failures like this impossible by design, rather than just less likely.
There is an actionable plan in the article. It is possible to run teams like these. It is an economical decision of upper management to run the risk of having these outages vis-a-vis this alternative.
I'm happy that we agree on the solution, but disagree only if it is cost worthy. About the cost, I took that into consideration when I wrote the conclusion:
> FAANG-style companies are unlikely to adopt formal methods or relational rigor wholesale. But for their most critical systems, they should. It’s the only way to make failures like this impossible by design, rather than just less likely.
There is an actionable plan in the article. It is possible to run teams like these. It is an economical decision of upper management to run the risk of having these outages vis-a-vis this alternative.