For better and worse. Most older building materials do not pass current building codes¹, even though many of them are perfectly safe and robust, while being way more ecological. Usually more labor intensive yet often still cheaper.
¹ depending on region
That's primarily because they had to comply with the requirements of that time instead of requirements created in the future.
Nevertheless, rigorous compliance is not the point. The point is that the whole industry is focused on standardization, complying with specs, and use only tried and true technologies and techniques. That's not what the software development industry is about.
I was merely pointing out it has significant and serious downsides as well (which may be overwhelmed by the upsides).
If we were to apply similar principles to software development, it would have benefits and also downsides, both of which should be considered.
The fact that materials used in construction are not that plenty, thus generally well known, is not a law of nature. In fact, it's the direct result of a radically different engineering culture. In construction, you only use building materials and techniques that are well known and demonstrably robust and performance. Even in new building elements and materials and techniques, before they can be adopted by the public first they need to be subjected to a whole batch of certification procedures and approved by a bunch of regulatory bodies.
Hence, a brick is a brick is a brick, because bricks are standardized and all the bricks you have contact with are actually certified and must comply wiht standarda such as
https://www.astm.org/Standards/C62.htm
The fact that software development is a mess is precisely due to all the shortcuts and refusal to follow common practices established in engineering.