You're arguing that the median quality output of programmers isn't raised by good practices, good tools and good management by using examples that feature poor practices, poor tools, and poor management.
Some questions to consider:
Practices: Is the output of the median programmer raised or lowered when all code is reviewed by a senior programmer?
Tools: Is the output of the median programmer raised or lowered when the language includes memory management?
Management: Does management that insists on quality output and backs it up with time or resources raise or lower the the output of the median programmer?
I feel like I miscommunicated and we're talking past each other, so let me try to fix that.
I guess I was reflexively reacting to a certain culture that tolerates mediocrity. Yes, tools are important. Code review, source control (Git, not that Perforce monstrosity), and continuous integration are necessary. For every level of programmer, such tools are necessary, but they shouldn't be used as an excuse to keep trying to nail 100 mediocre programmers together and make them build something. It still won't work.
Modern tools should be used because even great programmers have lapses into mediocrity or even stupidity. Version control has saved my ass on multiple occasions. I would, frankly, just assume that every decent programmer is going to insist on using a version control system.
Practices: I agree with you that code review is beneficial-- necessary, even. It's not enough, sadly.
Tools: Usually, tooling wars end up involving the command-line-vs-GUI debate, so I'll address that and ignore the others for now. IDEs are a double-edged sword. Use them when they make you more productive, but if I can tell that your code was written using an IDE, that's bad on you. I like Google's read-only IDE. IDEs are indispensable for certain types of forensic work but IDE-dependence is just awful.
Management: ok, I agree with you here. Managers who insist on quality and are willing to pay for it are a godsend (and also rare).
Some questions to consider:
Practices: Is the output of the median programmer raised or lowered when all code is reviewed by a senior programmer?
Tools: Is the output of the median programmer raised or lowered when the language includes memory management?
Management: Does management that insists on quality output and backs it up with time or resources raise or lower the the output of the median programmer?