If we did that then we might actually start resembling a field of engineering. Unfortunately software is much more nebulous than structural, mechanical and other fields of engineering. There are less clear cut right and wrong things to do.

Part of what gives software it's unique advantage in today's world is it's ability to change to meet evolving demands quicker than any other way of formulating solutions. As such unclear specifications are somewhat of a pillar of software engineering.

However with unclear and perhaps rapidly changing specifications comes a lot of judgement calls on what to build, how to build and what are reasonable shortcuts to take. Software engineers are almost alone in this, most other professions have the "correct" way and all the ways you can do it wrong. In software there is no "correct" way and just many different ways of kinda achieving something "right".

I guess, if it was possible to build towers and bridges at the same speed we build software projects, we would see the same level of nebulousness appear.

"99.999% of code should never be written"

Interesting. So if you are a freelancer, you will reject 99.999% of would-be customers. Not exactly a winning formula.

Or, if you work for some kind of organization, you tell them, 99.999% of the time, that the business demands are "unreasonable" and that code should not be written. That will get you fired.

Either way, I am not sure where you are going with that narrative.

> My solution is radical, but necessary. 99.999% of code should never be written. Let's start saying no to businesses with arbitrary demands, and let's all agree on a set of standards.

Problem is identifying those 0.001%

What do you mean exactly?