Better fighters have been produced in far less time for far less money. I think it's receiving so much attention on HN because it's an example of poor engineering.
The do-everything F-35 was actually supposed to be a cost management idea, since the exploding cost of new generation fighter programs was so big, we were just going to do one of them, rather than several for different roles. This would, the theory went, be cheaper in total for development, plus the shared parts would make them cheaper in operation, then separate role-specific airframes.
And, radically expensive and problem-prone as F-35 has been, that still might all be true. It might have been far more expensive, both in development and operational costs, to develop separate airframes for the various roles.
Furthermore, because they tried to make the aircraft meet contradictory requirements it has resulted in a plane that doesn't do several things as well as even the aircraft it is replacing, much less newer aircraft on the battlefield. All at an astronomical cost.
At a certain point it just doesn't make sense to pay far more for a weapons system that doesn't do anything well.
...and if you ever bought that, they've also got a bridge they'd like to sell you. The goal is to spend money. This is just their latest innovation in achieving that goal.