If the article only attacked that specific book "Clean Code", then I would not be as critical. But the first line in the article suggests that it is an attack against the entire idea of writing good quality code:
'It may not be possible for us to ever reach empirical definitions of "good code" or "clean code"'
It might seem far fetched that someone might question the benefits of writing high quality code (readable, composable, maintainable, succinct, efficient...) but I've been in this industry long enough (and worked for enough different kinds of companies) to realize that there is an actual agenda to push the industry in that direction.
Some people in the corporate sphere really believe that the best way to implement software is to brute force it by throwing thousands of engineers at a giant ball of spaghetti code then writing an even more gargantuan spaghetti ball of tests to ensure that the monstrosity actually works.
'It may not be possible for us to ever reach empirical definitions of "good code" or "clean code"'
It might seem far fetched that someone might question the benefits of writing high quality code (readable, composable, maintainable, succinct, efficient...) but I've been in this industry long enough (and worked for enough different kinds of companies) to realize that there is an actual agenda to push the industry in that direction.
Some people in the corporate sphere really believe that the best way to implement software is to brute force it by throwing thousands of engineers at a giant ball of spaghetti code then writing an even more gargantuan spaghetti ball of tests to ensure that the monstrosity actually works.
I see it as an immoral waste of human potential.