I'd change the closing from "we need to stop breaking software" to "we need to stop breaking processes".
This is a point of stability that Knuth tried highlighting, but gets panned for. Once a piece of foundational software is released, it has to remain stable not just in "doesn't crash" but in "doesn't change."
Common Lisp gets this right to an amusing degree by how much extension can be provided in user space. The lesson being that the less you do in the core offering, the more folks can depend on it? Maybe. Not sure, with how much that offering actually does.
I do think "enable your users" should be more the focus. Not "control your users so that they do what you think they should be doing."
This is a point of stability that Knuth tried highlighting, but gets panned for. Once a piece of foundational software is released, it has to remain stable not just in "doesn't crash" but in "doesn't change."
Common Lisp gets this right to an amusing degree by how much extension can be provided in user space. The lesson being that the less you do in the core offering, the more folks can depend on it? Maybe. Not sure, with how much that offering actually does.
I do think "enable your users" should be more the focus. Not "control your users so that they do what you think they should be doing."