[x0x0]

Well, also, you make some claims that could be interesting then provide zero proof or even discussion at all.

The entire world: interesting in eng being more productive and interested in more maintainable software. So the first 2 sections are interesting.

You then chase them with a list of assertions with zero discussion as to how they make eng more productive, or lead to more maintainable software. Also without even a hint of why people eg prefer not defining styles inline (protip: fun at first. Now try changing one of them... have fun reviewing 3000 inline bits of css.) Like the industry settled on certain things for a reason, and you don't even attempt to engage with that reason.

You also cite dhh when you like his reasoning and ignore him when you don't. about which, well...

[tonyennis]

"list of assertions with zero discussion as to how they make eng more productive" - this is fair. Initial versions of the post had much more of this but I felt it added noise to the core principles. I will be following up with some more posts and real world examples though. "Like the industry settled on certain things for a reason" - In my experience An industry "settling" on something hasn't been a great indicator of its effectiveness. Industries tend to settle on practices that increase the value of its practitioners and increase barriers to non-practitioners. The legal industry, for example, is still remarkably expensive, laborious and bureaucratic, and while outsiders recognise this, there are few people within the industry who seek to change it. Thanks for the feedback