I've read all of Uncle Bob's books. IMO, Robert C Martin is to Computer Science what Nassim Taleb is to Economics and Finance and what Jared Diamond and Graham

I've read all of Uncle Bob's books. IMO, Robert C Martin is to Computer Science what Nassim Taleb is to Economics and Finance and what Jared Diamond and Graham Hancock are to anthropology and archeology - they're psuedo-intellectual quacks pushing a bunch of impressive and authoritative sounding absolute bs with zero evidence behind it on unsuspecting victims. A lot of Robert C Martins pieces are just variations on his strong belief that ill-defined concepts like "craftsmanship" and "clean code" (which are basically just whatever his opinions are on any given day) is how to reduce defects and increase quality, not built-in safety and better tools, and if you think built-in safety and better tools are desirable, you're not a Real Programmer (tm). I'm not the only one who is skeptical of this toxic, holier-than-thou and dangerous attitude. Removing braces from if statements is a great example of another dangerous thing he advocates for no justifiable reason https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/320247/has-can-anyone-challenge-uncle-bob-on-his-love-of-removing-useless-braces/320262 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3202... Which caused the big OSX/iOS SSL bug in 2014, see https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html https://www.imperialviolet.org/2014/02/22/applebug.html This link and thread on hackernews is good too https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15440848 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15440848 The current state of software safety discussion resembles the state of medical safety discussion 2, 3 decades ago (yeah, software is really really behind time). Back then, too, the thoughts on medical safety also were divided into 2 schools: the professionalism and the process oriented. The former school argues more or less what Uncle Bob argues: blame the damned and * who made the mistakes; be more careful, damn it. But of course, that stupidity fell out of favor. After all, when mistakes kill, people are serious about it. After a while, serious people realize that blaming and clamoring for care backfires big time. That's when they applied, you know, science and statistic to safety. So, tools are upgraded: better color coded medicine boxes, for example, or checklists in surgery. But it's more. They figured out what trainings and processes provide high impacts and do them rigorously. Nurses are taught (I am not kidding you) how to question doctors when weird things happen; identity verification (ever notice why nurses ask your birthday like a thousand times a day?) got extremely serious; etc. My take: give it a few more years, and software, too, probably will follow the same path. We needs more data, though.