I can't tell you how much more I would value someone who takes 4 weeks to build something that works 100% of the time over someone who takes 1 week to build something that works 95% of the time. Something that works 95% of the time is worse than useless IMHO.
The replies to this topic are the most ridiculous programmer-equivalent of Internet-toughguy posturing.
Have you seen the people, money and time resources NASA put into the code which runs on space flight hardware? The reviews on reviews on reviews, the exactly specified every code path, the complete tracking and investigating of every bug in their codebase ever and checking all of them for wider applicability... and they don't get 100% success in years of applying their processes to a comparatively small and limited codebase.
Wasn't Zed telling us about how 37 signals restarts their Ruby in Rails processes every day due to instability and memory leaks? Guess that makes their lower-than-100% success rate multi-million dollar generating software "worse than useless", eh?
Sorry didn't see this at the time. Just for the record, I wasn't saying lower than 100% success rate is worse than useless. I was saying 95% success rate is worse than useless. I didn't set up this false equivalence, the OP did. I know that 100% is a tough or impossible goal, but you really do need to approach 100%. 95% is nowhere near close enough.
