Only because liability is still not a thing in software as in other regulated domains.
> Many years later we asked our customers whether they wished us to provide an option to switch off these checks in the interests of efficiency on production runs. Unanimously, they urged us not to--they already knew how frequently subscript errors occur on production runs where failure to detect them could be disastrous. I note with fear and horror that even in 1980, language designers and users have not learned this lesson. In any respectable branch of engineering, failure to observe such elementary precautions would have long been against the law.
-- C.A.R Hoare on his Turing award speech in 1981.
Against the law cause if you do this on a bridge, people die.
If a play Civ V and it crashes, I just a bit mad.
I will acknowledge though good engineering practices are important, maybe my perspective of "tolerance" of these bugs when they are isolated is missing the point.
If I play Civ V and it crashes, I want my money back, just like I won't stand a broken appliance.
Thankfully App stores are already making this point clear to the industry.
Doesn’t this counter your first point? A broken appliance isn’t against the law.
Second, I think data shows most people don’t return games after 1 crash. In fact, I think getting to market fast is a bigger factor for profit.
Not refunding a customer for selling a broken product is against the consumer law in plenty of jurisdictions.
People still don't do it because they have been taught that software is special, they have to put up with broken products, that is just how things are with computers.
Similar quote in a more recent video:
Maybe that was right in the 70-80s, but I feel like he's not giving enough credit to modern static verification / type-checking.