Doctors benefit from better tools and processes too, but this is all wildly beside the point, because my point was not that we can’t build a better programmer, it’s that we can’t just build a better programmer, for the reason that I then went on to outline.

You bring up a great point, though. Historically, C is often not trusted for software where people’s lives are on the line. Thus bringing up doctors is a great example of how building a better programmer is not good enough. There’s an entire class of “safety critical” programming practices and standards and it was common to prefer a language like Ada that made more bugs and logic errors into compiler errors.

> it’s that we can’t just build a better programmer, for the reason that I then went on to outline.

Apologies for missing your point. I thought you meant by this:

> The reason for that is because large projects can’t have only one developer.

... that you meant we would have to change more things in our business and software cultures rather than just making programmers smart (something I could agree with), not that you believed this was some kind of truism.

I don’t believe this is true. Why are you convinced it is impossible to do “big” things without big teams of idiots?

> Historically, C is often not trusted for software where people’s lives are on the line. Thus bringing up doctors is a great example of how building a better programmer is not good enough.

I don’t see how one of these things has to do with the other. Can you explain the link?