I agree with the author of the article to an extent - there's lots of things about Uncle Bob's advice I don't care for. But... I agree with Uncle Bob's take t

I agree with the author of the article to an extent - there's lots of things about Uncle Bob's advice I don't care for. But... I agree with Uncle Bob's take that discipline is lacking in software development today. It's not that people won't make mistakes if they are more disciplined - of course they will - but it's the kind of mistakes people are making that might change. I see code written every day that, when I give even a cursory glance to the PR, I can tell there are issues. The developer didn't even do the barest due diligence to make sure they didn't break things. Formal verification and other software correctness tools can be great in the right circumstance. I think anyone doing life-critical software should be using something above and beyond the basics. But, for most projects I see - formal verification isn't really a solution to quality issues. Having developers who give a damn and have a little paranoia and pessimism ("how is this thing going to fail on me?") would do 100 times more for the outcomes. In my mind the best code is the kind you didn't write, and the best infrastructure is the kind you didn't need to stand up, and the best distributed system is no distributed system.