They're both new versions of an ancient archetype of IT. When they are correct, it seems that their priority is being correct, rather than productively informin

They're both new versions of an ancient archetype of IT. When they are correct, it seems that their priority is being correct, rather than productively informing others. This attitude ignores a fundamental truth of any industry; "perfect" is the enemy of "finished", and if I can get to "good enough to ship" without having smug perfectionists on my team, then I won't have them on my team. The above reasoning is altered if the smug perfectionist is a totally unique and unreplaceable talent, or if the project truly requires a degree of perfectionism (e.g. medical devices, avionics). But that's... largely not what Blow and Casey talk about... Given that, my response to these guys is to paraphrase Mark Twain: sorry I wrote a complicated program, I didn't have time to write a simple one.