Since I've been (incorrectly) implicated here, I feel the need to chime in...
1. David has been under a LOT of pressure recently, and I'd already gotten on his case about the error messages shortly before this thread arose, so I can only assume that he was feeling a bit edgy about the subject. Given that, please cut him some slack on this one. His response could have been better worded, but I don't think it was as bad as it was characterized here.
2. The error messages are admittedly VERY poor in a variety of places. In places where I've spotted them in the past, I've flagged the issue and we've made improvements. Joe has done the same when he's caught issues. But Joe and I don't see all the various error messages and error handling behaviors, so there are a lot of places where we simply haven't caught the programmer-ese.
3. There is a separate task clearly outlined on our task list to go through and review all error messages and error handling behaviors so that we can address anything that is not going to be helpful to users. Sadly, that task has languished on the list for a long time because we've focused our efforts on other areas where we believe users will derive greater benefit. Given the clamor for everyone's favorite feature, plus the comments above regarding your relative priorities, that task will likely continue to languish for a fair bit longer.
4. Programmers write software. They do it well because their brains work a particular way - one that is very different from the norm. It is arguably quite rare for programmers to also be mindful of the typical user - one developer I know refers to such a combination as a "purple unicorn" (i.e. mythical). Consequently, many aspects of software products are frequently not well handled for the typical consumer. Witness 30 years of products from Microsoft as Exhibit A. So the claim that it takes ZERO extra time to write a clear error message is flawed. If the programmer writes the error messages, then you get a message that makes sense to the PROGRAMMER - which is exactly what we have here. Someone else has to come in and "police" everything to make sure it's all being done optimally for the average user.
5. Policing everything for the typical user takes a significant amount of time, and it's usually done by someone who's not a programmer (since the combination is rare). For a tiny team like we have for Realm Works, there isn't someone else, so the task falls to other members of the development team who are already working their tails off to add further capabilities to the product. They need to stop and review everything, but that doesn't always get done as thoroughly as it could, since a thorough job would further slow down our progress.
Bottom line: We know error handling/reporting could and should be done better, and we've got tasks on our todo list to shore things up. But we're also mindful that most of our users would choose more features over improving the existing error handling/reporting. So it's a no-win situation for us, and we're doing a passable job IMHO, improving things incrementally over time. Is it ideal? Nope. But anything else would be doing a disservice to users, since they'd rather have new features as fast as possible.