Software engineering research is immature and, as such, has few (no?) strongly-supported claims that the entire field relies on. I agree this is a frustrating state of the field, but the way this is written makes the author appear to be unfamiliar with the state of things.

For example:

>Did I mention that all three of those papers use different definitions of “defect”?

This kind of thing is really common in academia. I do not know software engineering research in detail, but there are older and more basic definitional fights in the social sciences. Defining a defect, as I'm sure the author of the blog would agree, is not a trivial decision.

In general, this piece contains (perhaps hyperbolic?) dismissals of people trying to do work. It doesn't seem to respect what I imagine is earnest effort. Taken all together, it seems like the author either thinks the entire field is charlatans (which I doubt as they use the fields' conclusions at the end) or is making light of people working on problems they themselves do not have answers to in order to have a more lively writing style. It was fun to read and left a bad taste in my mouth.