No. It's the best that can sometimes be done quickly.
Additionally, this doesn't mention the value of a good postmortem. Or the horrors of cloud computing, where restarting things is deemed a good enough mitigation because in the cloud these things happen, and nobody pushes for a good postmortem and repair items.
The whole article here is an argument for the proposition that, in many cases, this is not just the best compromise taking expediency into account, but the best thing to do, period (there are some caveats in the section titled "Complications.") You are entitled to a contrary view, but you have not said anything to counter the arguments presented here.
The last two sections do include the value of postmortems (or forensic analysis, as the author puts it) though from the perspective that this is more feasible and effective on a system that promptly crashes when things go wrong.
It sometimes really is as good as you can expect. You can have a compiler that checks for increasingly complex errors in intent but it won't defend you against cosmic rays.
No. It's the best that can sometimes be done quickly.
Additionally, this doesn't mention the value of a good postmortem. Or the horrors of cloud computing, where restarting things is deemed a good enough mitigation because in the cloud these things happen, and nobody pushes for a good postmortem and repair items.