Tangentially, I believe the root cause of all software architecture debates is an argument over who pays what aspect of cost.
Language goals such as expressivity, readability, brevity, composability; and features such as static typing; and patterns such as monoliths and microservices, ship-fast-fix-later, agile and waterfall design, centralized vs distributed; and aphorisms such as DRY and YAGNI - can be evaluated in the framework of shifting cost between original programmer, future maintainer, service provider, service user, or library/module reuser (and one individual may assume all of those roles at different points in the software’s lifecycle!).
Well yea, I guess the underlying trueism is that "its turtles all the way down" in all things. We like to act like over-arching things (safety) weigh higher, and so we speak like the decision to go for safety isn't an economic decision, but in truth, it always is.
Free software has costs, so its not like FOSS is outside this loop either.
Once you start modelling everything in cost/benefit terms, it all gets a bit odd. I think "because I want to" looses out.
But in Aircraft design, and regulatory oversight, I think we might want to shift the knobs on the control box a bit.
While I agree there are some very hard trade offs that we have to make along all of those axes, I do also think there times when people aren't being ... thoughtful and you end up with situations that are far off the pareto frontier.
Language goals such as expressivity, readability, brevity, composability; and features such as static typing; and patterns such as monoliths and microservices, ship-fast-fix-later, agile and waterfall design, centralized vs distributed; and aphorisms such as DRY and YAGNI - can be evaluated in the framework of shifting cost between original programmer, future maintainer, service provider, service user, or library/module reuser (and one individual may assume all of those roles at different points in the software’s lifecycle!).