Regardless, their point is that the argument seems faulty. Indeed, their docs going unreviewed seems moot to whether the code goes unreviewed, given there are much stronger reasons to review code than there are to review documentation; as they wrote, bad documentation doesn't automatically break your application when it's published (there's at least a few more steps involved). Your statement's accuracy is not exclusive to the illogic of an argument which agrees with the statement.

> I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate

Indeed, that is playing Devil's Advocate but one should remember that such Advocacy is performed to make sure that arguments against the Devil are as strong as they can be. It's not straightforward to see how simply repeating an assertion helps to argue for the veracity of it.

They never said that there was no example of code quality issues.

What they say is that low quality in the documentation does not mean low quality in the code. Nothing says that they are related.

Sure I suppose on the face of it the two are not necessarily related, but it seems likely to be highly correlated?

> these days

I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was, but let's not forget that Windows used to be very fragile indeed.

It was more fragile 20 years ago than it is today.

It was more robust 5 years ago than it is today.

Or at least that's been my impression. I can't back that up with hard data.

>> I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was

Anecdotally, installing wrong drivers (in my case it was drivers for COM-port STM32 interaction) could make it as common as twice a day on Win11. While my windows server 2008 still doing just great, no BSOD through lifetime.

I agree that for a common user BSOD is now less likely to happen, but wonder whether it's less to do with windows core, and more with windows defender default aggressive settings