What you say is true right now, but in the long term, the gp is correct unless we hit an AI asymptote which prevents AI from approaching human StarCraft capabilities.
Just from a pure economy standpoint, any computer process has quite an advantage from just optimizing action queues and keeping idle workers working.
People have already created TAS programs that can take out infinite numbers of enemies with minimal stock (ex: medvac/tank vs. infinite ultralisks). Or have zerglings that perfect 1 siege blast per 1 zergling splitting.
As far as micro, AI already has proven capability to absolutely dominate human micro, like not even close.
As far as build paths and macro decisions, AI isn't there yet but all it takes is one player and one programmer to come up with an in-the-middle and well-rounded build path that doesn't lose to any cheese; Sacrifice some economy to just have an army at all times_ and the AI will micro dominate the rest in extremely, humanly impossible army trades (I mean winning a 40 stock vs. 200 stock army battle).
Honestly just imagine having ONE mutalisk perfectly micro all-game, never receive death damage that just outputs as much damage as humanly possible at every angle. And you could have all 20-140 of your army stock doing this at all points in the game.
No contest. Just hasn't had time devoted to it yet.
AIs have already been doing perfect micro cheese strategies (even with mutas!).
And EVEN THOUGH they have access to ridiculous APM and the ability to do BS cheese strategies like that, they STILL suck.
Seriously, go watch some of these games. The AIs are freaking terrible, despite the fact that they basically cheat at the game.
Also, the AIs "perfect" micro, frankly only applies at the individual unit level. IE, they can kite like no tomorrow with a singular marine, but as soon as you have anything more complicated than that, such as "fight with 10 marines", well you learn that the AIs can't so much as form a concave.
Yeah, those 10 marines are all INDIVIDUALLY stutter stepping, but it turns out that perfect stutter stepping doesn't matter much when your army is cut in half, due it being split up.
Controlling more than a couple units "perfectly" (with regards to each others actions) seems to be out of reach of any AI out there.
Brood War competitions have been going on for seven years, with individual bots getting years of development. If beating professionals was easy it'd have been done by now.
It turns out that being really good at narrow micromanagement situations doesn't add up to winning complete games. StarCraft is messy and difficult.
No it's not. It's the same argument we've had about any kind of progress in programming languages since we started using higher level languages (I.e Fortran and up).
He didn't condemn Kotlin and swift. He is saying that they aren't necessary and don't solve the original problem. That the constant search for a new framework or of language that will fix everything is a futile attempt to avoid learning how to more effectively code with the tools you already have.
In one of the linked posts he says that 100% test coverage might not be truly achievable, but it's nonetheless a valid asymptote to aspire to.
I think that exact argument applies to designing ever-safer, ever-better languages. You might never have the perfect tools that ensure 100% program correctness, but it's sure as hell what a tool-maker should aspire to.
Uncle Bob's true value to me was to teach me how bad of shape the software world really is in. Look at any engineering discipline. There are standards, there's a rigorous design process, there's checks from more experienced engineers, there are best practices, etc. Software is like the wild west, and if people don't realize that and try to create some sort of standard than eventually someone with no knowledge of the field will. He's trying to encourage people to understand the problem and think towards creating rules so everyone can perform and collaborate better. Eventually software will become like other more established fields but it's up to our generations to take us there.
I think his main point is that we don't see MBAs supervising the construction of a bridge, why do we let them supervise the creation of software? A civil engineer has sufficient organizational clout to push back on unrealistic deadlines when managing a project, but software engineers don't have this level of recognition. The way to be recognized as professionnals, according to him, is to start acting like one.
> if people don't realize that and try to create some sort of standard than eventually someone with no knowledge of the field will.
I don't think so... No one's hunting down and calling to account the engineers responsible for the Equifax breach, and nor should they. The problem is blatantly a leadership and resource-allocation issue, and is being treated as such.
Bad software has done worse things than release private info. Just a few worse things: failed space missions and cost NASA credibility, killed hospital patients, bankrupt Knight Capital, almost caused World War III due to a false-positive nuclear-launch warning, caused wide-spread blackouts, killed people (lookup Patriot Missile).
We as developers are just waiting for something so terrible to happen that someone is forced to take notice.
