Dan Morena, CTO at Upright.com, made the point that every startup was unique and therefore every startup had to find out what was best for it, while ignoring whatever was considered "best practice." I wrote what he told me here:

https://respectfulleadership.substack.com/p/dan-morena-is-a-...

My summary of his idea:

No army has ever conquered a country. An army conquers this muddy ditch over here, that open wheat field over there and then the adjoining farm buildings. It conquers that copse of lush oak trees next to the large outcropping of granite rocks. An army seizes that grassy hill top, it digs in on the west side of this particular fast flowing river, it gains control over the 12 story gray and red brick downtown office building, fighting room to room. If you are watching from a great distance, you might think that an army has conquered a country, but if you listen to the people who are involved in the struggle, then you are aware how much "a country" is an abstraction. The real work is made up of specifics: buildings, roads, trees, ditches, rivers, bushes, rocks, fields, houses. When a person talks in abstractions, it only shows how little they know. The people who have meaningful information talk about specifics.

Likewise, no one builds a startup. Instead, you build your startup, and your startup is completely unique, and possesses features that no other startup will ever have. Your success will depend on adapting to those attributes that make it unique.

It took me way too long to realize this, but my experience is that "zealots, idiots, and assholes" (as the author says) are going to abuse something and wield it as a bludgeon against other people. This appears to be a fixed, immutable property of the universe.

If you take it as a given that some number of people are going to get an idea lodged in their head, treat it like gospel, and beat as many other people in the head with it as they can... the best strategy you can adopt is to have the ideas in their head be at least somewhat useful.

Yes, reasonable people understand that "best practices" come with all sorts of context and caveats that need to be taken into account. But you won't always be dealing with reasonable people, and if you're dealing with an asshole, zealot, or idiot, I'd sure as hell prefer one who blindly believes in, say, test-first development versus believing that "test code isn't real code, you should spend all of your time writing code that ships to users" or some other even worse nonsense.

I think the rejection is too strong in this article. The idea of, “best practices,” comes from an established Body of Knowledge. There is one published for software development called the SoftWare Engineering Body of Knowledge or SWEBOK; published by the IEEE.

The author seems to be arguing for nuance: that these “laws,” require context and shouldn’t be applied blindly. I agree.

However they shouldn’t be rejected out of hand either and people recommending them aren’t idiots.

Update: one problem with “best practices,” that I think the article might have unwittingly implied is that most software developers aren’t aware of SWEBOK and are repeating maxims and aphorisms they heard from others. Software development is often powered by folklore and hand waving.

> but because they’re mostly pounded by either 1) various types of zealots, idiots, and assholes who abuse these kind of “best practices” as an argument from authority, or 2) inexperienced programmers who lack the ability to judge the applicability,

The author might go on to make other points that are worth discussing, but lays out his supporting arguments clearly in the opening paragraph. Best practices do not necessarily do harm because they offer bad advice, they do harm because they are advocated for by zealots and the inexperienced.

My first reaction is how unfortunate it is that this particular developer has found himself in the presence of bad engineers and the inexperienced.

But then, the argument is automatically self-defeating. Why is the rest of the article even worth reading, if he states upfront what his arguments are and those arguments are very easy to refute?

It is deeply irrational to judge the merits of an idea based solely on who is advocating for that idea.

My advice to the author is to reflect on the types of positions that he accepts, the ones that have him so put off by the people that he works with that he is openly writing about abandoning what he admits could be sound engineering practice, solely based on who that advice is coming from and how it is being delivered.

Developing software is complicated. It is constant problem solving. When solutions to problems come about, and we abstract those solutions, it is quite easy for individuals to misapply the abstraction to an inappropriate concrete. To drop context and try to retrofit a lousy solution because that solution was appropriate to a slightly different problem. But at the end of the day, these abstractions exist to try and simplify the process. Any time you see a "best practice" or design pattern acting as a complicating force, it is not doing its job. At that point you can either be objective and exercise some professional curiosity in order to try and understand why the solution adopted is inappropriate ... or you can take the lazy way out and just assume that "best practices" are the opinions of zealots and the inexperienced who blindly follow because they don't know any better.

Rules travel further than reasons.

The problem is that a lot of true things in the world are counter-intuitive. So insisting that all the rules "make sense" in an immediate way is clearly a non-starter. In the safety industry there are many examples of best practices that are bred from experience but end up being counter-intuitive to some. For instance, it might not make intuitive sense that a pilot who has gone through a take-off procedure thousands of times needs a checklist to remember all the steps, but we know that it actually helps.

It's hard because there is usually some information loss in summarisation, but we also have limited memory, so we can't really expect people to remember every case study that led to the distilled advice.

As a chemical engineer by training, though, I have constantly been amazed at how resistant software people are to the idea that their industry could benefit from the kind of standardisation that has improved my industry so much.