Because Worse is Better. /s

It's the incentives and everything is a trade off. Time to market, performance, features: none of these choices are made in a vacuum. Oh, and people like to go home and see their families once in a while.

As a developer of over 35 years, I feel like I hear the same arguments over and over again. "Programmers used to care about performance!" No they didn't, they just had no choice because computers sucked and you had to work on performance or your application would barely run. "Progammers used to care about the quality of their code!" Really. You apparently never worked on legacy systems with years of hacks and spaghetti code that took an afternoon to trace through just to figure out what it was doing.

People haven't changed. Kids aren't lazier these days. The incentives are always just to ship as fast as possible. Performance will be dealt with when and if it is so bad that the customer complains and not a moment sooner.

When I was much younger I fancied myself a "craftsman" of software. But any "craft" I was able to bestow on my software was in spite of the surrounding incentives not because of them. Software is closer to assembly line work than craftsmanship and LLMs are just driving that point home faster and harder than ever.

I still love software development after all these years but it's entirely because I love solving problems and computers still fascinate me the same as they did when I got my first TRS-80 Color Computer at age seven. Nobody that's not a programmer cares as long as the software does what they need it to and does fast enough that they don't start wonder why they have to use this piece of crap software in the first place.