> The problem is not that "lack of quality doesn't cost ...much". It
> actually costs a hell of a lot. Since I only work part time, 2 hours per
> week is roughly 10 percent of my time.
What I meant was sucky software doesn't cost the vendor much because
the customer expects it and puts up with it.
> software quality - and especially when the general public comes to
> understand that the "C-world" excuse that "software just can't be done
> right" is just plain false - I think we are going to see a war against lack
> of quality that makes Ralph Nader look like a Girl Scout out on a Sunday
> picnic. :)
You say when, I say IF.