Given the amount of effort you devoted to replying to multiple posts, it feels disingenuous when you make an obvious and inaccurate statement as fact.

There is very little dependency graph organization (eg subtasks), which isn't reflected in most of the UI anyway as JIRA does push toward treating all tickets as a flat set. Work is a practical hierarchy of concerns and JIRA never made much progress away from a checklist (same as ASANA, Rike, etc).

"Implementors". Anything that needs to be "implemented" is either a) not finished, b) too big and complex, or c) both.

Dunno for sure how much less code Jira has compared to, say, MS Excel or Adobe Acrobat, but I could imagine it might be up to an order of magnitude. But you don't have to "implement" those; you just install them.

But no, that's missing the point: That's what makes it an equally stupid "Enterprise product". Excel, OTOH, is arguably more essential to more corporations, and yet you don't see big international consultancies snap up contracts for six-year-long "Excel Implementation" projects with Fortune 500 corporations. You do see that for SAP, Oracle Business Suite (or whatever it's called nowadays), etc. They're products that you don't just install and use; they need to be "implemented". JIRA is more like that.

Or, IOW: I wasn't comparing, but contrasting. (Which, OK, is also a kind of comparison. But for this kind, it's Excel that is the better example than Teams.)