That isn't the slam dunk you think it is. Just because they won't doesn't mean they can't. MS have decided it isn't important enough to fix.
Fwiw I view MS as a terrible (software) product company. All of their products fall short of delivering, in my opinion. I think of them as the "80 percenters" - their prpduxts do 80% of what any user reasonably expects as UX of their products, or of what their competition offers.
Teams: 80% of Slack.
Azure: 80% of AWS.
Etc.
Have discovered a bug within their product(s)? Unless you have an account manager on speedial (and thus are paying the kind of fees that get you an account manager) good luck getting any kind of response that isn't some cut/paste job by a community "MVP"
>> Just because they won't doesn't mean they can't.
In other words it means just because they can pay programmers to write good software, doesn't mean they will, and just because they don't have to cut down on costs by using some hapless LLM code generator instead of good programmers, doesn't mean they won't. They will.
That's the point. If you have industry leaders that suck so terribly at making good software, because they have no incentives to do so, software is going to suck even more when they realise they have no incentives not to make it suck even more, and it's easy to do (by LLM).
Fwiw I view MS as a terrible (software) product company. All of their products fall short of delivering, in my opinion. I think of them as the "80 percenters" - their prpduxts do 80% of what any user reasonably expects as UX of their products, or of what their competition offers.
Teams: 80% of Slack. Azure: 80% of AWS.
Etc.
Have discovered a bug within their product(s)? Unless you have an account manager on speedial (and thus are paying the kind of fees that get you an account manager) good luck getting any kind of response that isn't some cut/paste job by a community "MVP"