Except the attempt to bring large project under control with multiple layers of some type of project and or personnel management. That why I simply excluded team programming, it doesn't fit.

I agree partially on the art side. Yes, it may need to be specified in the physical detail to extreme levels (I'm thinking highly controlled water fountains). But what is the downside of getting a subtle difference from spec? If the water is a bit purple rather than blue because the lasers were slightly off, does a bank transaction fail somewhere? So the level of responsibility is simply not there. Programming isn't art in the end result of what it produces, it may be internally artful, but that doesn't mean artists are doing what I described, just that programmers might be doing some of what artists do, occasionally.

On the architect/engineer/construction side, no. You sit with one of those guys, you start dreaming, and they'll tell you your request went from $50,000 to $200,000 and take 4 months to build. If you go to someone else for the same, most likely your prices and skillsets will be equivalent.

These guys assemble. They do it creatively, sometimes, but they are assembling stuff that they've spent years training for. Programmers have to pick up a new language or environment in a few weeks (days in an emergency). How long would it take an architect trained in modern construction techniques to put a bathroom in your house?

And then long for the same guy to put it in an office building, but he has no commercial experience. Doesn't happen. Different training.

And then how long for the same guy to go to a historical village, and put a bathroom on a 200 year old church. Never. Again. Different training.

How many languages (or equivalent variations of environment) are you expected to be productive in when you are a new hire, ie: how long to train up, if they know you have no experience in this before an need a training (or review) period? And they have high expectations of you?

Different. Way different.

If someone shows up and says they can do it for $10,000 in 2 weeks, you KNOW they are full of shit.

You do that when programming, and your in house guy gives you the $200,000 estimate, and the new guy who has lots of experience says, nah, I can do it for $5,000, just give me the weekend to create a proof of concept to be sure.

You believe it is possible. Or at least you should, and you'd give them a chance to show you.

If that type of wild variation is possible (and reasonable), what is the client thinking? It's all f'ing magic, and they can have everything they want, for a minimal price, as long as they find the right guy.

And I pointed out that it the power and freedom is dangerous, and it is just like Spiderman.

With great power comes create responsibility.

On the other hand, no, on the complex involved projects. Any possibility of team programming removed the absolute freedom (a pointed out), and the level of capability VS project type can allow for occasionally perfect black box projects, at least for me. So the question is not how is is constructed internally, the question is how long can the system run, being driven by external table for how long, without me or someone of my skillset level ever touching it.

And those projects historically cost in the ranges I described, along with those cost differentials.

My screed isn't about crappy programmers doing damage (which happens, bad programmers will always be there, it is just a matter of dealing with them and working around them). It's trying to come up with an analogy of what I do if I'm questioned by an exec, and why is it different from what they had before.

And do it without telling him I'm a f'ing genius.