To offer an opposite position I pretty much disagreed with --or at least would heavy qualify-- with most points. The rest I thought were trivial.
> Writing non-trivial software that is correct (for any meaningful definition of correct) is beyond the current capabilities of the human species.
Perhaps, but this is a worthless distinction, especially if the author does not define correctness. If it is mathematically correctness he is after I think experience has shown a program does not to be correct to be very very useful, and except for extremely critical situations is not a consideration. The same way a road does not need to be perfect.
> Being aligned with teammates on what you're building is more important than building the right thing.
Hell no! Every leader would prefer to go in the right direction at 50% of maximum speed, that going 100% in the wrong direction.
> There are many fundamental discoveries in computer science that are yet to be found.
True, but trivial. The same thing can be said about every theoretical branch of science like math and logic, and even for many experimental branches.
> Peak productivity for most software engineers happens closer to 2 hours a day of work than 8 hours.
Perhaps, but if you work the other 4-6 hours at 25% of your peak you still would do more than double during the day. Besides, the 2-hour figure, although reasonable strikes me as anecdotic at best. If anyone knows about a study I would love to read it.
> Most measures of success are almost entirely uncorrelated with merit.
Without a definition of merit, this is worthless. And for that matter, a definition of success is also needed.
> Thinking about things is a massively valuable and underutilized skill. Most people are trained to not apply this skill.
Really? Thinking is a valuable skill?, who would have thought?
> The fact that current testing practices are considered "effective" is an indictment of the incredibly low standards of the software industry.
Or perhaps reaching that "effective" threshold is beyond human capacity. I think this claim is pretty insulting to the software industry in general too.
> How kind your teammates are has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.
Perhaps? It is not that straightforward. Doing a CRUD app with Ruby in a team full of assholes will have a "larger impact" than doing in on assembler with a bunch of goodie-goodies.
> The amount of sleep that you get has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.
Perhaps? Without further qualifying it is worthless.
> Writing non-trivial software that is correct (for any meaningful definition of correct) is beyond the current capabilities of the human species.
> Being aligned with teammates on what you're building is more important than building the right thing. > There are many fundamental discoveries in computer science that are yet to be found. > Peak productivity for most software engineers happens closer to 2 hours a day of work than 8 hours. > Most measures of success are almost entirely uncorrelated with merit. > Thinking about things is a massively valuable and underutilized skill. Most people are trained to not apply this skill. > The fact that current testing practices are considered "effective" is an indictment of the incredibly low standards of the software industry. > How kind your teammates are has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use. > The amount of sleep that you get has a larger impact on your effectiveness than the programming language you use.