[bashtoni]

I feel like listening to Theo about anything technical is like consulting a Labrador retriever for advice on quantum physics.

Every time I've ever seen one of his videos it's pretty clear he has very little understanding of development or engineering. I first became aware of him from his early "unit tests are a waste of time" stuff, and it seems his skillset is building a personal brand. Fair play, he's clearly talented at that, but that doesn't make his opinion on anything else worthwhile.

[patates]

> it's pretty clear he has very little understanding of development or engineering

I cannot prove it but I have a feeling that you may be conflating "he clearly has different opinions on things I consider non-negotiable" to "he doesn't know what he's talking about".

I also watched a lot of his videos. I wildly disagree with him a lot of times, but he has his reasoning, and I can see (and verify!) that those ideas are coming from an engineering perspective.

[esperent]

The problem is that he's a tech influencer first, a tech expert second.

That's his motivation, influencing. Not teaching.

I'm not so against him as the previous commentor but I feel basically all YouTubers who have succeeded in building a brand have the same problem. They have to present their opinions as unassailable truth, they can't allow nuance. Within reason of course, they also have to play the game of appearing considerate and understanding of other people but it will always boil down to proving they are the real experts, their ultimate goal is always to get you watching more of their content.

If they don't do this, they appear less trustworthy and their brand wouldn't have grown as much as it did. They might genuinely have some expertise to share, and even contrary or downright wrong takes could teach us something if they were only presented in a way that encourages critical thinking. But as the person above said, their real deep expertise is in brand building.

[0dayz]

I sort of disagree, the issue is that he like so many professionals (prime agent, being the other) becoming youtubers uses their experiences to make their opinion the only opinion when said opinion is nuanced or plain wrong objectively.

[patates]

No he usually acknowledges other opinions (including the ones that I share) and tells from his perspective why they are wrong. It feels condescending when you see a face on screen, roasting what you think is right, but I personally could get over it and learn to take the bits that challenge my ideas.

Of course, youtube isn't interactive and when you see something that you think is objectively wrong, your options are writing a comment nobody will read or ignoring it, which is frustrating, but that, in my opinion, doesn't discredit the content producer itself.

[satvikpendem]

You can make a counter argument video, which I've seen done, and then sometimes the original YouTuber will reply or collab. This happened when Theo had some truly awful takes on Flutter while knowing nothing about it, a prominent Flutter dev replied rebutting each point made, then they both collaborated to make a video where they switch technologies for a few hours to build something, and it was enlightening for both parties.

[steve_adams_86]

He's clearly very knowledgeable about some things, but I think he has harmed his credibility be becoming a 'tuber who prioritizes thumbnails and hot takes over engineering.

[satvikpendem]

Not really. If you're a YouTuber it's necessary to follow the algorithm which includes making such a YouTuber face, clickbait actually works and has a direct financial correlation as Linus Tech Tips has shown.

[steve_adams_86]

That’s fine, but I trust him to play the YouTube game as a result, not as an engineer.

[incrudible]

If you are a competent engineer already why do you need to create self demeaning clickbait content on YouTube? Narcissism? I aggressively block any such content, because if you click on any of it, you easily get sent down the YouTube spiral of crap.

[satvikpendem]

One can be multiple things. That you find it demeaning is your personal opinion and frankly is more a reflection on yourself. There are many like Casey Muratori that are competent engineers as well as YouTubers.

[incrudible]

Casey (on his channels) does not do the clickbait thing, which makes all the difference. You can either maintain integrity and credibility or you can make brainrot shockface “it is over” content. There is no middle ground.

Maybe you are desensitized to it, but I have a carefully curated YouTube and I know that it can be a completely different platform experience if you reject with prejudice any such content.

[patates]

> he has demolished his credibility be becoming a 'tuber who prioritizes thumbnails and hot takes over engineering

I don't agree that he has demolished his credibility. I also dislike the youtube face and sensationalization but I personally don't hold it against him, given the Youtube algorithm.

Regardless of his style, I like hearing the take from an engineer who's working in a different country/culture and has a completely different perspective.

edit: it seems you changed "demolished" to "harmed". I still don't agree but it reads more defensible IMHO, thank you.

[torginus]

He has big 'theatre kid' energy (at least certainly had, watched him years ago) - he desperately wants to make clear that there's a group of cool kids and he's in it.

His youtube channel used to be about talking about the new FOTM Javascript framework/technology - not presented as 'here's a cool thing, let's check it out' but 'everyone worth a damn already uses this, get with the times grandpa'

[satvikpendem]

"Average Theo video be like": https://youtu.be/h1p9zdUtUdo

It's shocking how many accurate tropes this hits.

[zarzavat]

There's a simpler explanation. Social media rewards surprise and hype, not truth. Don't expect objectivity from someone who gets paid by the view.

[Havoc]

And half his videos are him coming up with indirect ways of saying look how amazing I am.

[scotty79]

It's curious how so many people get triggered by a smart person saying what he believes to be true. Yes, he is pretty amazing. Yes, he is rarely wrong. No, it doesn't affect you or me in any way because he is not in competition with you. Go do something else if you don't enjoy his takes.

I don't get many programmer influencers in my feed that deal with newsworthy relevant stuff. Theo is the least wrong and most humble one in my perception.

[ttul]

I disagree with this assessment. Theo is nerdy and, yes, he has a healthy ego. But, he provides insightful commentary on his channel and he works very hard to present what he believes is the truth. Compared to many YouTubers, whose content is vacuous, Theo is mostly the real deal.

[ttoinou]

There is a whole religion about tests that is worth attacking though

[bashtoni]

Sure. If his take was "100% unit test coverage is a waste of time" I think that's not unreasonable. You could make a case that the "you must write tests before you write code, every single time!" stuff is needlessly dogmatic. I also think that sometimes people focus too much on unit tests to the detriment of end to end tests that better model actual system interactions.

None of these were Theo's take. He was pushing the idea that unit tests in general were a waste of time because you could be shipping new features instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvBHyip4peo for an example of this. The nicest possible interpretation on this is that he's deliberately saying something he knows is wrong to attract attention.

[theshrike79]

Tests before code makes sense when fixing bugs. Red-green specifically.

1: get bug

2: write tests that should work, but don’t because of bug

3: fix bug

4: confirm fix by running tests

Makes things a LOT easier for people checking the PR, they can just confirm the tests are correct pretty much.

As a bonus the same bug can’t surface again.

[bashtoni]

Yep, I'm in full agreement. When extending functionality of some already existing code it also generally makes sense to write tests first.

I think the value is much lower (maybe even negative) when you're still trying to work out what shape the code will take, in an initial implementation.

Of course, as others have pointed out, nuanced opinion doesn't get clicks or YouTube views.

[ttoinou]

Oh I do that naturally as my rational problem investigation. Sometimes you can’t write a test for that, you need to test it yourself

[scotty79]

He doesn't believe that unit tests are complete waste of time. Just a relative waste of time. He doesn't mind AI agents writing tests. It's just mostly waste of time for humans. Because the value you get for them is not worth developer time in most cases. It's worth agent time.

[ah1508]

When I start using a chainsaw or a car I hope it has been tested (!) Without tests before delivery the one who tests is the end user. Disaster for a unreliable chainsaw, very unpleasant for a software.

But you're right, the goal is not to write test but to ensure delivery of a reliable software. However each software is a prototype, something that has never been made before (unlike a manufactured car or chainsaw) so the customer must be ready to some unexpected behaviors when the software is released.

Since tests are often sloppy or does not cover every edge case, I see a real value for GenAI. It also forces to write good spec: very clear about inputs and the invariants for each use case. I think that AI (especially GenAI) should first be a solution to existing problem, lack of tests and good specs is often one of them.

[ttoinou]

If you write too many preconditions, postconditions, invariants etc. Then you cement your software and you will spend most of your time on the tests rather than on the actual useful software

[pdantix]

i already found his clear shilling of nextjs a bit distasteful, but his whole gpt-5 thing really just made it clear he's just not worth listening to.