Fair enough. I am sure your response will qualify in any smart response competition.

Agreed. Its's definitely the second type of quality I am referring to. And even the "third" one, that you are hinting, that would bring along beauty in design, and elegance in implementation. The first kind of quality you are defining, ie bug-free coding, may even not be quality at all, but simply what a plumber gives when he leaves the premises having left no leaks in the pipes. Especially since good sense teaches that coming back to fix the holes is at your own cost, as a plumber as well as a developper. Now the question is : Provided the client would agree to pay this desirable application as you name it, would he get the best deal so doing ? Would not he be paying too much ? Should we both (client and developper) agree to stop at the quick and dirty AND bug-free stage ? In your words, is the desirable aspect of the application something the client ought to pay for ?

The advantages of high quality coding are unchallenged from a technical prospective. Now, what about the economical aspect ? Is it really worth paying the additional cost of quality, economically speaking, in terms of time namely ? I guess that to answer this question in an undisputed manner, the same project would need to have been conducted in the long run both at say 80% quality level, and at 100% quality level, and the cost of ownership of both implementations compared during a (say) 5 year period. These experimental conditions seem fairly unpractical though. Could you guys share your views with me on this point ? Or direct me to relevant studies on the subject ? Does high quality really pay back ? Thanks in advance for your contributions