The article alludes to an interesting insight that developers tend to quickly disregard messy reality in favor of idealized theory. Developers are particularly bad when the argument necessarily involves aspects of human psychology.
There is a very big difference between what SHOULD happen in theory and what WILL happen in practice - Arguments related to human psychology should never be discarded outright.
Saying that a particular tool is not suitable because the tool is too complex and there are too many junior developers in the company can be a very strong argument.
Or saying that a tool adds complexity to the project and that this adds unknown unknowns which adds risk is also a strong argument.
Or a common one I use when discussing statically typed languages is that it's incorrect to assume that people will use types correctly; statically typed languages prevent developers from mixing invalid types based on their definitions but it doesn't stop developers from using the wrong type definitions (wrong abstractions) to begin with!
There is a very big difference between what SHOULD happen in theory and what WILL happen in practice - Arguments related to human psychology should never be discarded outright.
Saying that a particular tool is not suitable because the tool is too complex and there are too many junior developers in the company can be a very strong argument.
Or saying that a tool adds complexity to the project and that this adds unknown unknowns which adds risk is also a strong argument.
Or a common one I use when discussing statically typed languages is that it's incorrect to assume that people will use types correctly; statically typed languages prevent developers from mixing invalid types based on their definitions but it doesn't stop developers from using the wrong type definitions (wrong abstractions) to begin with!