Unfortunately, I think this attitude is irresponsible. So many people's lives rely directly on software in one way or another that we shouldn't treat it so whimsically.
That's not to say that the practise can't be fun, but just like building a bridge we need to make sure it works.
Most people's lives don't rely on software to continue in any material way, outside of some extremely specialised circumstances (e.g. medical equipment). Just because someone's life is impacted by software doesn't mean that you should then suddenly enshrine their approval as the word of your lord. Candy impacts people's lives too, but we do not view it in nearly the same way.
this is a preposterously naive view of software. the entire energy grid relies on software, cars rely on software, all of manufacturing, the entire financial system.
Most people aren’t building bridges though. Most people are building software that just assists some business process. That absolutely does not need the same rigor as building a bridge.
There was once a programmer who was attached to the court of the warlord of Wu. The warlord asked the programmer: "Which is easier to design: an accounting package or an operating system?"
"An operating system," replied the programmer.
The warlord uttered an exclamation of disbelief. "Surely an accounting package is trivial next to the complexity of an operating system," he said.
"Not so," said the programmer, "When designing an accounting package, the programmer operates as a mediator between people having different ideas: how it must operate, how its reports must appear, and how it must conform to the tax laws. By contrast, an operating system is not limited by outside appearances. When designing an operating system, the programmer seeks the simplest harmony between machine and ideas. This is why an operating system is easier to design."
The warlord of Wu nodded and smiled. "That is all good and well, but which is easier to debug?"
The programmer made no reply.
Perlis was a research scientist so had freedom not everybody does.
But I have worked with people in other fields (mechanical engineering, biology, medicinal chemistry, etc) who took similar delight in their field, and it was infectious.
One can design a bridge and still have room for whimsy.
That's not to say that the practise can't be fun, but just like building a bridge we need to make sure it works.